Mr Stewart was a 63-year-old man who lived in a rented house. He was separated and had shared custody of his 14-year-old son. He loved animals and had a dog.
In 2016, Mr Stewart experienced nausea and abdominal pain. He sought treatment at the Redcliffe Hospital. The hospital was negligent and caused numerous injuries: bowel perforations, sepsis, cardiac arrest and stroke. Mr Stewart also suffered brain damage, and he now needs a colostomy bag.
Following his hospital treatment, Mr Stewart was discharged to a nursing home.
He felt miserable living there. His son was not allowed to stay overnight with him. Even for a visit he had to give advance notice. His dog was not permitted to be there. Mr Stewart’s physical condition deteriorated.
Mr Stewart claimed compensation for his injuries in the Supreme Court of Queensland. As part of the claim, he said the hospital should pay the costs of him living and being cared for in his own (rented) home, rather than in a nursing home. The cost of this was $4.9 million. By contrast, if Mr Stewart stayed in the nursing home, the cost was $300,000 to $1 million.
The hospital said Mr Stewart’s claim to be allowed to live in his home was unreasonable.
The Supreme Court found that the health benefits of living at home were only minimally higher than a nursing home. In these circumstances, it was unreasonable to expect the hospital to pay millions more in compensation.
The High Court disagreed. It said the basic principle of compensation is that an injured person should receive compensation in a sum, which, so far as money can do, will put the injured person in the same position he would have been in if the negligence had not occurred.
According to the High Court the question is: was Mr Stewart’s choice to live at home a reasonable response to repair the consequences of the hospital’s negligence.
The High Court said that a plaintiff such as Mr Stewart must prove two things. First, that the steps they take to repair the defendant’s negligence are reasonable. Secondly, that the costs of those steps are also reasonable. Once Mr Stewart proves that home care was reasonable and that its costs were also reasonable, the hospital had to pay these costs – unless they could prove that the costs of home care could be avoided by an alternative that was unreasonably refused.
What was Mr Stewart’s position before the hospital’s negligence? He lived in his rented home with the family dog, his son regularly visiting and staying with him. This was not possible in the nursing home.
The court also said that the reasonableness of Mr Stewart’s choice of living at home was further reinforced by the trial judge’s findings that the overall health outcome was better than if care was provided in the nursing home.
The High Court’s decision is a big blow to insurers defending compensation claims. The decision makes clear that just because the insurer can find a “cheaper option” does not mean that it is appropriate to reduce compensation amounts.
