In this case the appellant, a patient who suffered a thromboembolic event following the use of tranexamic acid, claimed that her doctor had negligently failed to warn her that the drug carried a risk of thromboembolic events. On appeal, the Court applied the test set out in Rogers v Whitaker, which provides that a doctor owes a duty to warn a patient of a material risk, and defines a risk as “material” if:

  • in the circumstances of a case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would attach significance to that risk if warned of it; or
  • the doctor is or should have been reasonably aware that the particular patient, if warned of the risk, would attach significance to it.

The Court concluded that there was nothing that would have indicated to the respondent that the appellant, if warned of the risk, would have attached any significance to it. The Court left open the question of whether a reasonable person in the appellant’s position would attach significance to the risk because it affirmed the primary judge’s finding that the appellant had not established that the drug had caused her condition. Furthermore, the Court found that, even if the plaintiff had been warned of the risk, she would have nevertheless accepted the medication as prescribed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The decision can be accessed here.