20 years too late: Court sets clear expectations for delay in personal injury claims
Building on our discussion of 'material facts of a decisive character' in the knowledge of the plaintiff in our 2024 article, a recent Queensland Supreme Court decision clarifies what counts as taking 'reasonable steps' to ascertain these material facts.
Facts and issues
The plaintiff, Cheryl Ringelstein, underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy and posterior repair at Caboolture Hospital in June 2004. She claims the surgery was negligently performed and caused long-term complications requiring multiple further operations. In 2008 and 2010, she approached law firms for legal advice but was unable to proceed due to the cost of expert reports. Despite receiving written advice about the limitation period, she took no further legal steps between 2010 and 2022.
In mid-2022, after watching a television program about complications at the same hospital, Ms Ringelstein met with hospital representatives. She alleges that during this meeting the hospital admitted fault and later offered a $10,000 goodwill payment, along with a letter acknowledging that the care provided was below the expected standard.
On 23 June 2023, nearly 20 years after the surgery, Ms Ringelstein started medical negligence proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland. She applied for an extension of time under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (LAA). In October 2023, she obtained expert reports that stated the lack of due care she experienced at Caboolture Hospital had caused her harm. The defendant, Metro North Hospital and Health Service (MNHHS), opposed the application due to the significant delay.
Submissions
Ms Ringelstein submitted that her application for an extension of the limitation period under s 31(2) of the LAA should be granted because the material facts of a decisive character were not within her knowledge until either a meeting with hospital staff in June 2022, or when she obtained an expert report in October 2023. She stated that her failure to act earlier was due to a combination of financial hardship, psychological trauma, limited education, and stress arising from her medical issues.
MNHHS opposed the application, arguing that Ms Ringelstein failed to take all reasonable steps to obtain the relevant material facts, and had known since at least 2009, that the limitation period had passed. MNHHS highlighted the legal advice provided to Ms Ringelstein in 2009 and 2010, which outlined the time restrictions and options available to the plaintiff.
MNHHS also argued that the 12-year period during which Ms Ringelstein made no efforts to seek legal advice or an expert opinion was excessive and unexplained. As a result, the Court should not exercise its discretion to extend the time limitations.
Analysis
Justice Martin dismissed the application to extend the time limit under s 31(2) of the LAA. While MNHHS agreed that the 2023 expert reports were material facts of a decisive character, the Court focused on whether Ms Ringelstein had taken all reasonable steps to find out those facts earlier.
His Honour found that Ms Ringelstein had known since at least 2009 that the limitation period had expired and that she needed expert medical evidence to make a claim. Despite this, she took no steps to investigate or act for over a decade. The Court acknowledged her financial hardship and emotional distress but held that these did not justify such a long delay.
Although the expert report was obtained in 2023, it was based on medical records that had been available for many years.
Conclusion
Justice Martin concluded that Ms Ringelstein had not taken all reasonable steps to find the material facts she relied on. The lengthy delay in making the claim was both unexplained and unjustified. Under s 30(1)(c) section of the LAA, the Court found that shehad not taken reasonable steps to obtain the expert evidence earlier.
The Court dismissed the application to extend the limitation period and reserved the issue of costs.
Takeaways
While the delay in this case was significant, it provides guidance on what are reasonable steps.
It makes clear that simply obtaining a recent expert report alone will not justify an extension of time application seeking to commence proceedings after the expiry of a limitation period. Plaintiffs must show they took all reasonable steps to investigate their claim and seek legal advice without delay before the expiry of the limitation period.
Where a plaintiff applies for an extension of a limitation period, 'reasonableness' depends on their personal circumstances. Stricter expectations apply to those with legal knowledge. When seeking consent to proceed out of time, plaintiffs should provide affidavit evidence detailing their efforts and reasons for delay. Unexplained or avoidable delay in investigating or pursuing a claim may result in the dismissal of an application to extend the limitation period.
This article was written with the assistance of Vicky Nguyen, Winter Clerk.
Contact
