It's all about manipulation; Woman unsuccessfully sues chiropractor following treatment

25 MAY 2018

 

In 2007, the plaintiff consulted the defendant on numerous occasions for chiropractic treatment. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant administered a chiropractic device, called the Activator, hundreds of times on each occasion to her cervical spine, which she claims led to her suffering psychiatric injury and mental harm.

The defendant held numerous instructor certificates in Activator Method Chiropractic Technique. The device is spring-loaded, and activated by pressing a handle on the instrument’s shank. It delivers a controlled, repeatable force to its rubber tip. The force may be altered, however, the forces are considerable as the point of the device is for it to apply sufficient force to move bones in the spine.

The plaintiff claimed that at their first consultation, the defendant applied the device hundreds of times to her cervical spine, and that he did not ask her to perform the various movements mentioned above. However, the defendant claimed that he applied the Activator on precisely seven occasions to her pelvis, lumbar, thoracic and cervical spine.

Court Proceedings 

The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the defendant, in negligence and claimed damages. She alleged that his negligence in the course of 19 chiropractic treatments performed by him, between February and September 2007, have caused her injury, especially psychiatric injury. She also alleged that the defendant's clinical notes were fabricated.

The defendant denied liability. He also relied on s 32 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), that no duty in relation to any case based on consequential mental harm arose, because

  1. A person of normal fortitude would not in the circumstances of this case have suffered a recognised psychiatric illness if reasonable care were not taken and
  2. The plaintiff was (unbeknownst to the defendant) not a person of normal fortitude.

His Honour Leeming JA found that if there was a breach of duty in the defendant continuing to treat the plaintiff between February and September 2007 when she continued to develop symptoms, it was not established that any of the applications of the Activator II — a handful of times on each occasion, and never more than once or twice to any particular part of the spine — caused any physical or psychiatric injury.

Further, the plaintiff had not established any impairment to her physical condition, as opposed to impairment of her mental condition. The only injury established by the plaintiff is injury which s 32 of the Act excludes from the scope of the duty of care owed to her by the defendant.

Accordingly, his Honour dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs.

For more information on the above contact Joe Bonura on (02) 4626 5077 or jbonura@marsdens.net.au.

This article first appeared in the CCH Australian Tort, Personal Injury, Health and Medical Law Tracker and is reproduced in full with permission from CCH, a division of Wolters Kluwer Australia: www.wolterskluwer.cch.com.au

The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. This publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Specific legal advice should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.

Posts you may find interesting

News

POSTED: 07 Mar 2024
In this recent NSW Court of Appeal decision, the Plaintiff had sued his gym after sustaining injury whilst using exercise equipment. His claim had been unsuccessful in the Supreme Court of NSW.
Read more