The Court of Appeal has set aside the High Court’s dismissal of Eugene McCormack’s medical negligence action against spinal surgeon Marcus Timlin and ordered a retrial. The appeal court did not decide that Mr Timlin was negligent; it held that the High Court’s reasons on central disputed issues were insufficiently explained for the decision to stand.
Mr McCormack’s claim concerns care after spinal surgery performed by Mr Timlin at the Mater Private Hospital on 11 March 2010. He alleged that developing cauda equina syndrome was not diagnosed and treated soon enough. The High Court had found that he was suffering from developing cauda equina syndrome by 16 March, that signs were visible on an MRI scan that day, and that earlier revision surgery would have avoided at least some resulting symptoms. It nevertheless dismissed the claim, finding Mr Timlin was not negligent in interpreting the scan or continuing conservative treatment until 19 March.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court had not adequately reconciled its acceptance of the plaintiff’s experts’ MRI interpretation with its conclusion that Mr Timlin’s different interpretation was not negligent. The judgment did not resolve important expert disputes about what the scan showed or explain why the plaintiff’s experts were preferred. It also did not determine how the clinical signs known to Mr Timlin—including urinary retention, right-leg weakness and numbness—should have informed his assessment alongside the scan.
The appeal court also set aside the finding that Mr McCormack had developed cauda equina syndrome. Mr Timlin had argued that normal bladder test results undermined that conclusion. The High Court had not engaged with that argument. The appeal court declined to decide the medical dispute itself, leaving it for the retrial.
A separate appeal ground concerned physiotherapy notes recording buttock numbness and a query about caudal compression. The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that this issue itself justified a retrial: Mr Timlin’s evidence that he had not reviewed the notes was not challenged at trial, and no application was made then to recall witnesses. The retrial will, however, allow the issue to be clarified, subject to any necessary amendment of pleadings.
The court directed that the remitted proceedings be managed in the High Court, with disputed issues identified in advance and expert engagement encouraged. It proposed that Mr McCormack recover 75% of his appeal costs, with a stay pending the retrial, and that the High Court costs order be set aside. Costs of the first High Court hearing were to be reserved for the retrial judge. The judgment records those costs terms as proposed, subject to any application for a supplemental hearing within 28 days.