ABSTRACT
Carole Chester suffered from chronic low back pain. Miss Chester further testified that had she been informed of the risk of nerve damage and paralysis that eventuated. The evidence showed that Miss Chester's condition resulted from contusion of a spinal nerve root, the cauda equina. The doctor testified at trial that he had explained the small risk of cauda equina nerve root injury to Miss Chester and that he 'thought' he had told her of the risks of sensory disturbance or even paralysis resulting therefrom. By the time of trial, six years post surgery, Miss Chester's disabilities had improved, but evidence on their extent was not presented. Rather, trial on the damages portion of her case was adjourned pending resolution of Dr Afshar's appeal of the court's liability determination. The trial court found Dr Afshar had a legal duty to inform his patient of the 1-2 per cent risk of serious neurological damage inherent in the spinal surgery he proposed.
