Harrison CJ
Summary
The NSW Supreme Court addressed the issue of admissibility of multiple experts in a negligence claim involving the treatment of a stroke patient. The decision clarified exceptions to restrictions on using experts within the same specialty, particularly in complex clinical cases.
Background Facts
The case arose from a claim for medical negligence by the plaintiff, Mr Irfan, against a hospital regarding alleged delays in administering thrombolysis (clot-dissolving medication), and failing to administer mechanical thrombectomy (clot retrieval). The plaintiff sought to rely on expert evidence from Professor Yan, a neurointerventionist, despite already having submitted a report from Professor Brooder, a neurologist. Although both experts were trained within the same field of specialty, Professor Yan had particular expertise in clot retrieval.
In the previous decision of Irfan v Western Sydney Local Health District [2023] NSWSC 845, Harrison CJ made orders to dismiss the plaintiff’s application to rely on the medical report of Professor Yan. His Honour identified that the report appeared “to be an application to rely upon more than one expert in the same field of specialty”. [1]
Issue
The central issue was whether the court should permit the plaintiff to rely on two experts in the field of neurology, given the general prohibition against multiple experts in identical specialties.
Decision
The Court granted leave, emphasising that specialised subfields and case complexity justified this exception to the usual restriction on multiple experts. His Honour considered the New South Wales Supreme Court Common Law Practice Note 7, which recognises that complex medical negligence cases may require more than one expert from a party to give evidence on a particular issue. [2] His Honour acknowledged that although Professor Brooder’s neurology expertise covered stroke management generally, Professor Yan’s qualifications were necessary for evaluating clot retrieval, and therefore considered a distinct subspecialty.
Implications
Courts typically restrict the use of multiple experts within the same specialty as it is often considered costly, time-consuming, and productive of delay. Nonetheless, this ruling illustrates where an exception may be made in cases which concern highly specialised medical interventions, and where experts with exceptional subspecialties and qualifications are required to address distinct technical or procedural aspects of a case.
This ruling provides guidance for future cases involving complex medical evidence, particularly where emerging technologies or subspecialties are central to liability arguments.