Back in April 2025, in the case of Ringelstein v Metro North Hospital & Health Service, the plaintiff lost her Supreme Court application to have her limitation period extended to 19 years after receiving an apology from the hospital. This meant she could not bring a claim against the Hospital.
The plaintiff recently appealed that decision to the Queensland Court of Appeal, and she won.
To recap, in June 2004, the plaintiff Cheryl Ringelstein was admitted to Caboolture Hospital and underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and posterior repair performed by a surgeon. Since then, she had experienced a number of ill-effects and undergone numerous invasive surgeries to remedy what she says are the consequences of the negligence of the surgeon.
In 2008 and 2010 she approached two law firms (Clewett Lawyers and Slater & Gordon Lawyers) to explore opportunities for legal action but because the law firms asked her to pay for the expert report and she could not afford to pay the $2,200 cost herself, she did not do so. She was referred to the QLS but did not contact them. She then took no further action between 2010 and 2022.
In June 2022, after hearing of a tv program featuring a whistleblower who had spoken of complications from surgeries conducted at the hospital, she had a meeting with representatives of the hospital. At this meeting an alleged admission of liability was made whereby she was told it was “terrible what had happened and it should not have happened” followed by a letter from the hospital stating that the care she had been provided “was below the expected standard”. She was also offered a goodwill payment of $10,000. A year later, in June 2023, almost 20 years following the surgery, Mrs Ringelstein commenced a proceeding claiming damages for medical negligence.
Limitation period and Extension of time
A claim for damages arising from medical negligence must be commenced within 3 years. Whilst Mrs Ringelstein’s history since the 2004 surgery was one of perversive problems apparently created by the original surgery with a corresponding list of unsuccessful attempts to correct the original surgery, the Supreme Court judge ultimately dismissed her claim stating,
“… some six years after the surgery, Mrs Ringelstein knew that the limitation period had expired, that she could make an application to extend the time, and that she had to act quickly to obtain the necessary evidence. Yet she did nothing until, at the earliest, June 2022, when she had a meeting with Metro North representatives. She then did not retain Slater & Gordon… until March 2023. Thus, she did nothing to investigation her legal situation or seek any assistance for at least 12 years.”
The plaintiff sought an order that the time for commencement of this proceeding be extended to 23 June 2023 (instead of the usual 3 year limitation of actions) on the basis that the alleged admission of liability was not made until June 2022 and she did not obtain an expert medical report by Dr Reid outlining the alleged negligence until October 2023. However, the hospital admitted that Dr Reid’s report constituted a material fact of a decisive character so the Court did not have to examine whether the apology itself constituted a material fact of a decisive character.
Her application, however, was dismissed because she failed the second limb of the test to extend the limitation period, being that “as far as the fact is able to be found out by the person – the person has taken all reasonable steps to find out the fact before that time.”
Having reviewed the evidence the Supreme Court Judge said:
“Even after taking into account all of Mrs Ringelstein’s personal circumstances, there is no evidence to satisfactorily explain the lengthy delay in pursuing this matter. I find that Mrs Ringelstein failed to take all reasonable steps to obtain the relevant facts – whether that be the statements made to her in June 2022 or the reports of Dr Reid in 2023.”
Mrs Ringelstein clearly sustained lifelong injuries and suffered immensely since her surgery in 2004. However, the Supreme Court in this case was unwilling to look past her 12 years of inaction.
On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal determined that it was a matter of discretion whether she had taken all reasonable steps. The Court noted that following the complications from the surgery in 2004, the plaintiff’s life had been “financially precarious and emotionally and psychologically trying”.
The Court of Appeal decided that a demoralised person in physical and mental distress, such as Mrs Ringelstein, with no available evidence of negligence by the hospital, who had been unable to enlist solicitors except on terms that she could not afford, and who was otherwise dealing with her deteriorated health and mental conditions, could not be said not to have acted unreasonably in not attempting further enquiries about the quality of care she had received until June 2022 (after hearing of the whistleblower and her meeting with the hospital).
The appeal was allowed, and the Court extended the time for bringing a claim against the Hospital.
We at Denes Lawyers much prefer the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow Mrs Ringelstein’s extension of time to bring proceedings, as the Supreme Court decision came across as overly harsh and unsympathetic against someone who was struggling both financially and physically for many years.
