appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

liveArticle

appConfig

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sectionsV2

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

json

SCMP Reporter

An $8.9 million claim for medical negligence lodged against a leading orthopaedic surgeon was thrown out of court yesterday.

Deputy Judge Anthony To Kwai-fung dismissed the claim of mainland-trained medical practitioner Ho Tao against Dr Lau Hoi-kuen.

Mr Ho was 'building castles in the air' by saying he lost $7.2 million in earnings, plus expenses, as a result of Dr Lau's treatment in December 1995, the judge said.

The claimant said he had been unable to continue a $50,000-a-month practice from his mobile clinic.

Mr Ho, who never qualified as a doctor in Hong Kong but said he had practised medicine on the mainland since 1939, also claimed he would have been a consultant with the Hospital Authority had it not been for the incident.

The Court of First Instance heard Mr Ho consulted the orthopaedic surgeon for back pain on December 12 and 20, 1995, and was given similar medication on each occasion. He took the medicine but had to be taken to hospital on Christmas Day after experiencing diarrhoea and vomiting.

The patient was found to be suffering from a duodenal ulcer for which he underwent an operation the next day. He was not discharged until January 6, 1996.

Mr Ho said Dr Lau did not explain to him the side effects of the prescribed medication, which he said had caused the ulcer.

The widower's claim also included $100,000 monthly living expenses, of which he told the court $5,000 was spent hiring someone to take care of him, $10,000 for food and $8,000 for various tonics.

In his written judgment, Deputy Judge To ruled that Dr Lau did not commit professional negligence in treating Mr Ho.

Instead, the plaintiff exaggerated most aspects of his claim and was therefore unreliable, the judge said.

Mr Ho was ordered to pay Dr Lau's legal costs.



Negligence claim against top surgeon thrown out