Chua Thong Jiang Andrew v Yue Wai Mun: Negligence in Spine Surgery
Andrew Chua Thong Jiang brought a claim in the High Court of Singapore against Dr. Yue Wai Mun and Singapore General Hospital Pte Ltd (SGHPL) for negligence and breach of contract, respectively, following a spine surgery performed by Dr. Yue. Andrew alleged negligence in the surgery and a lack of informed consent. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed the claim, finding that Andrew failed to prove Dr. Yue's negligence or that any alleged negligence caused Andrew's losses.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Patient Andrew Chua sues Dr. Yue and SGHPL for negligence in spine surgery. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty of care.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Thong Jiang Andrew | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Ramasamy Chettiar, Evelyn Tham, Chua Lynn Ern, Alvin Mun, Edwin Chua, Lawrence Chua, Yek Nai Hui |
| Yue Wai Mun | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won | Lek Siang Pheng, Mar Seow Hwei, Andrea Gan |
| Singapore General Hospital Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | Kuah Boon Theng, Alicia Zhuang, Felicia Chain |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ramasamy Chettiar | Acies Law Corporation |
| Evelyn Tham | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Chua Lynn Ern | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Alvin Mun | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Edwin Chua | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Lawrence Chua | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Yek Nai Hui | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Lek Siang Pheng | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Mar Seow Hwei | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Andrea Gan | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Kuah Boon Theng | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Alicia Zhuang | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Felicia Chain | Legal Clinic LLC |
4. Facts
- Andrew experienced back pain and collapsed, leading to paraplegia.
- Andrew was admitted to SGH and underwent spine surgery performed by Dr. Yue.
- Andrew alleged negligence in the surgery and a lack of informed consent.
- A second surgery was performed by Dr. Lee at Gleneagles Hospital after concerns about continued spinal cord compression.
- Andrew's condition improved after the surgeries and rehabilitation, but he still faced limitations.
- The plaintiff alleged that the posterior approach adopted by Dr Yue was inappropriate as the disc prolapse was a central one.
- The plaintiff alleged that Dr Yue failed to completely decompress the prolapsed disc which continued to compress on Andrew’s spinal cord.
5. Formal Citations
- Chua Thong Jiang Andrew v Yue Wai Mun and another, Suit No 893 of 2012, [2015] SGHC 119
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Andrew experienced back pain and collapsed. | |
| Andrew admitted to Singapore General Hospital (SGH). | |
| First MRI scan done at SGH. | |
| First surgery performed by Dr. Yue. | |
| Dr. Yue met with Andrew's family. | |
| Andrew transferred to SGH’s Department of Rehabilitation Medicine. | |
| Dr Yue left Singapore for an overseas conference. | |
| Andrew's brother spoke to Dr. Chang about Andrew's condition. | |
| Andrew requested a second MRI scan at SGH. | |
| Andrew granted home leave and saw Dr. Chang. | |
| Second MRI scan done at Gleneagles Hospital. | |
| Andrew discharged from SGH. | |
| Andrew admitted to Gleneagles Hospital. | |
| Second surgery performed by Dr. Lee. | |
| Andrew discharged from Gleneagles Hospital. | |
| Dr. Chang examined Andrew. | |
| Andrew's solicitors sent a letter of demand. | |
| Dr. Teh examined Andrew. | |
| Dr. Teh examined Andrew a second time. | |
| Writ of summons filed. | |
| Andrew went for another MRI scan at Gleneagles. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Medical Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant breached their duty of care or that any alleged negligence caused the plaintiff's losses.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Informed consent
- Causation
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1024
- [1957] 1 WLR 582
- [1998] AC 232
- Informed Consent
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had given informed consent for the surgery.
- Category: Substantive
- Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the alleged negligence and the plaintiff's condition.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Medical Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Medical Malpractice Litigation
- Personal Injury Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khoo James and another v Gunapathy d/o Muniandy and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1024 | Singapore | Leading authority on medical negligence in Singapore. Reaffirmed the Bolam test and accepted the Bolitho supplement. |
| Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee | NA | Yes | [1957] 1 WLR 582 | England and Wales | Established the Bolam test for medical negligence: A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular act. |
| Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority | House of Lords | Yes | [1998] AC 232 | England and Wales | Supplemented the Bolam test, stating that a court is not bound to find for a doctor simply because a body of experts testified in his favor; the expert view must satisfy the threshold test of logic. |
| D’Conceicao Jeanie Doris (administratrix of the estate of Milakov Steven, deceased) v Tong Ming Chuan | High Court | No | [2011] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Singapore courts have not followed the suggestion that a different approach applies to medical advice as opposed to diagnosis and medical treatment. |
| Tong Seok May Joanne v Yau Hok Man Gordon | NA | No | [2013] 2 SLR 18 | Singapore | Singapore courts have not followed the suggestion that a different approach applies to medical advice as opposed to diagnosis and medical treatment. |
| Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (General Medical Council intervening) | United Kingdom Supreme Court | No | [2015] 2 WLR 768 | United Kingdom | The United Kingdom Supreme Court applied a different approach from Bolam and Bolitho, based on patient or personal autonomy, for advice from a medical practitioner. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Spinal Cord Compression
- Disc Prolapse
- Posterior Approach
- Anterior Approach
- ASIA A
- Decompression
- Paraplegia
- Informed Consent
- MRI Scan
15.2 Keywords
- Medical Negligence
- Spine Surgery
- Disc Prolapse
- Informed Consent
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Medical Law
- Negligence
- Spinal Surgery
17. Areas of Law
- Medical Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Tort Law