He has Guillain-Barré (GBS) syndrome, is connected to the wheelchair and needs daily assistance.
Medical experts agreed that early treatment was desirable, but no evidence showed an improved result of the previous intervention.
The unnamed teenager and the life of his family suddenly changed in January 2017.
An attack on food poisoning before arriving in Nelson for a summer holiday led the year 15 years to develop alarming post-viral symptoms that ended up being the GBS.
The diagnosis at Nelson Hospital after an emergency admission occurred eight or nine hours after his mother called a medical support line and, as seen, received the wrong advice on what to do.
The family, with the help of a doctor, argued that the result could have been better if he had treatment early.
The Court of Appeal has now confirmed the decisions of two lower courts and dismissed the appeal.
The district court found that, based on the medical evidence provided, the delay in hospital admission did not cause an injury to treatment.
The Higher Court said the lower court applied the correct legal test because it had not been established correctly.
The Court of Appeal said there was a consensus among experts that early GBS recognition and treatment was desirable and may be important in the long -term prognosis.
However, the question of the dispute was the likely effect of a delay of seven to eight hours.
What is Guillain-Barré syndrome?
Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs when the immune system attacks and damages the peripheral nerves. The exact cause is unknown, but usually followed a bacterial or respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection.
In this case, the teenager was ill in early January 2017 with food poisoning.
An appointment to see your doctor was canceled when their symptoms improved, and the family left for planned summer vacation in the Nelson area.
Days after arriving, the teenager began to have difficulty walking and developed a sense of weakness in his arms. He passed out as he walked and had to be helped to get up.
Later that night, her mother called the medical support line and told the nurse that her son was sick with a “stomach bug”.
He was then eating correctly, but he was “painful and painful, trembling, without coordination, walking strangely with his legs crashing and had a sense of muscle contraction.”
The nurse suggested that he could still be suffering the effects of the belly insect and advised the teenager’s mother to maintain her hydration levels and turn back if he became breathless, blue on the lips or develop a rash.
The court of appeal said it was common for this advice to be wrong. The symptoms and the history described were a “classic GBS presentation” or another severe neurological condition that justifies an urgent medical investigation.
The correct advice would have been an immediate transfer to the hospital.
In the early hours of the next morning, the adolescent’s condition had deteriorated to the point of not being able to move his legs or spread his fingers. His mother called the support line again and a different nurse advised to call an ambulance immediately.
The GBS was identified shortly after its admission to the Nelson Hospital, the Court of Appeal said.
Emergency treatment
There was no cure for GBS, but two types of treatment exchange and intravenous immunoglobin therapy could reduce symptoms and accelerate recovery.
Intravenous treatment was initiated and the teenager was taken to Christchurch Hospital, where he was seen by a neurologist and the treatment of plasmapheresis began.
Two months later, the teenager was transferred to Burwood’s spinal unit in Christchurch. His handmaker Raj Singhal filed a claim for injury in the treatment with ACC for delay in diagnosis, said the court of appeal.
The ACC accepted that the delay of seven to eight hours in the diagnosis of the seriousness of its condition was a failure to provide treatment immediately in thecknowledge of the law.
However, he refused the claim based on which the delay did not cause GBS or increased its severity.
The ACC decision was confirmed in the review and, later, in appeal to the District Court.
After the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, a special license was granted for an additional appeal to test a legal argument, but the Court of Appeal came to the same conclusion as the lower courts – the Higher Court did not make an error in defending the application of the District Testing Court for the proceed.
The opinion of the medical experts was that there was no evidence pointing to an enhanced result if the treatment had been previously given.
Singhal replied that an earlier diagnosis would have reduced the degree of disability and time in ventilation.
Judges Christine French, Sarah Katz and David Collins said they were aware that the decision would be very disappointing for the applicant and his family who had suffered both and clearly showed exceptional courage and determination.
“However, the relief threshold at this stage of the dispute is high and, for the reasons we give, we are not convinced that it was attended.”
NZME tried to reach the applicant through the lawyer who acted for him.
– By Tracy Neal
Multimedia Journalist Open Nelson-Marborough
