Introduction
The case involved a claim by the plaintiff, Mr Stewart, against Rockingham Hospital, (the Hospital)1 for fraudulently or negligently making an involuntary patient order against Mr Stewart whilst he was a patient in the Hospital.2 A total of 68 claims were made against 10 defendants (the Defendants).3 The claims arose from Mr Stewart's stay as a patient at the Hospital from 17 September 2013 until 2 October 2013 and events occurring after his discharge.4
Mr Stewart's claims against the Defendants included: fraudulent concealment of falsified medical records, occupiers' liability, deceit, absence of consent to admission to a mental health ward, reprisals, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, fraudulent medical misdiagnosis, negligent misdiagnosis, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and fraudulently falsifying an involuntary order.5
The heart of Mr Stewart's claim was that he was fraudulently and/or negligently misdiagnosed with a mental illness and subsequently falsely imprisoned under ss 29 and 43 of the Mental Health Act 1996 (WA) ("MHA").6 He further claimed that the Defendants' misdiagnosis was intended to prejudice him in any complaints he made to the police or in litigation, by being stigmatised as having a mental illness.7
Judge Bowden of the Western Australian District Court (the Court) considered each legal element of Mr Stewart's claims and held that he had not satisfied the Court that his diagnosis of mental illness (that gave rise to an involuntary patient order) was not widely accepted by the doctors' peers as competent professional practice.8
Background
On 17 September 2017, Mr Stewart voluntarily attended the Emergency Department (ED) of the Hospital with concerns regarding thyroid issues and a possible panic attack or heart attack.9 Two senior medical officers ("SMOs") assessed him and formed the impression that he was suffering from a manic episode with eccentricity/mania.10
It was recommended Mr Stewart be voluntarily admitted to the mental health unit of the Hospital, Mimidi Park ("Mimidi").11
Mr Stewart was admitted to Mimidi as a voluntary patient on 18 September 2013. He alleged that he was not advised he was being admitted to the mental health unit and gave no informed consent to that admission.12 On 19 September 2013 Mr Stewart suffered an injury to his shoulder when he restrained a male co-patient who had attacked an elderly female patient in Mimidi.13 Following the assault, he was taken by a nurse to the ED for a shoulder x-ray.14 Mr Stewart repeatedly demanded that the nurse call the police regarding the assault.15 The nurse made a call about placing Mr Stewart on "forms" ' the process to have him admitted as an involuntary patient.16 Mr Stewart then fled the Hospital to a nearby house to call the police.17 He was brought back to the Hospital by the police, and he was reviewed by a senior medical officer at or about midnight on 19 September 2013.18 On 19 September 2013, Mr Stewart was placed on a "Form 1" under the MHA which enabled the Hospital to detain Mr Stewart until he was assessed by a psychiatrist.19
On 20 September 2013, Mr Stewart made complaints to the Hospital regarding his placement under a Form 1 and the failure of the staff to call the police.20 Mr Stewart was reviewed by a psychiatrist and declared an involuntary patient on the basis that he was having a manic episode.21 Mr Stewart was subsequently placed under "Form 6" per s 43(2)(a) of the MHA, meaning the psychiatrist may make him an involuntary patient and he be detained in an authorised hospital as an involuntary patient.22 This was on the basis that he was having a manic episode.23
Throughout the course of his stay at Mimidi, Mr Stewart admitted that he had faked chest pains and a coma to avoid taking his medication.24 He was restrained and forcibly injected with medication after refusing to take his oral medication.25 Mr Stewart was ultimately discharged from the Hospital on 2 October 2013.26
It was not until the following year that Mr Stewart went on to request access to his medical records in March 2014.27 The Hospital released only part of Mr Stewart's medical records under the Freedom of Information Act (1992) (WA) ("FOI Act") and then released further redacted medical records in September 2014.28
Throughout 2014, Mr Stewart made several complaints against the Hospital.29 These complaints included a formal complaint to the Minister of Health in Western Australia in 2014.30
Mr Stewart subsequently asserted that several reprisals were carried out against him after he contacted the Hospital in March 2014 in relation to his medical records.31 An example of a reprisal allegedly carried out against Mr Stewart included a reference to one of the Hospital staff "contacting the Police on 6 March 2014 to have him arrested and brought back into the Hospital".32
Defendants' claim
The Defendants' argued that the involuntary patient order made against Mr Stewart by the Hospital was properly made and that even before Mr Stewart had made complaints or witnessed the assault, an emergency department doctor was already concerned about his eccentricity/hypomania with a differential diagnosis of a manic episode with grandiose delusions.33
Plaintiff's claims, legal issues & decisions
Claim 1 ' Fraudulent concealment of the falsified medical records
Summary of Mr Stewart's claimMr Stewart alleged that the Defendants fraudulently concealed his medical records.34
Mr Stewart applied for his medical records under the FOI Act.35 He received medical records in two tranches; the first not being complete and heavily redacted and the second still redacted.36
Mr Stewart alleged that the medical records were redacted/falsified deliberately to show him in a bad light and to support false diagnosis.37 He argued that this amounted to fraudulent conduct by the Hospital to either disadvantage him in his complaints/proceedings in relation to his hospitalisation, or, as a retaliation to his complaints about the Hospital and his threats to go to the media and sue the Hospital.38
Decision
Mr Stewart alleged that there was continued fraudulent concealment of the names and particulars in his medical records during pre-discovery.39 The Court determined that Mr Stewart did not disclose a cause of action and that he had a copy of both the redacted and unredacted notes at trial.40
Mr Stewart alleged the defendants fraudulently concealed the names and particulars in the notes when redacting the medical records.41 The Court referred to Peters v The Queen (1998)42 as authority for the proposition that in order to act fraudulently, the Defendants had to have intentionally created a situation where Mr Stewart's interests were prejudicially affected...
