January 11 verdict
in Burgess inquest

CORONER FAITH MARSHALL-HARRIS will deliver her verdict on January 11, following an inquest into the death of a 30-year-old patient in surgery.

Marshall-Harris set the date yesterday after lawyers Sir Richard Cheltenham, QC, Ralph Thorne, QC, and Andrew Pilgrim made their closing submissions.

The case dates back to April 25, 2007, when patient Anthea Burgess died after a surgical procedure by ear, nose and throat specialist Dr Dennis Bailey, assisted by Dr Adele Bell.

The surgery, at Bailey's clinic, was to remove a small growth, or polyp, from Burgess' nose.

Sir Richard argued that evidence presented to the court pointed to "gross negligence" by the doctors in carrying out the surgery.

He said Bell administered the anaesthetic but was not trained in that field.

He told the court that in the first place it was negligence in judgement to have the operation outside the specialised setting of a hospital.

Sir Richard claimed that the equipment at the clinic did not function or was not properly read by the medical team - or both.

He said too that the doctors were negligent in not being familiar with the use of the two drugs administered - the painkiller Voltaren and the sedative agent, Propofol - and had failed to heed warnings associated with both.

Sir Richard also charged that the doctors had failed to use resuscitation exercises "other than CPR" after the patient's lips became blue, indicating a lack of oxygen in the blood.

Thorne, representing Bell, dismissed the suggestion that the surgery should have been done in a hospital, saying that surgeries even "more invasive" were being carried out successfully at small medical facilities.

He said it was a "simple procedure", similar to the more than 30 which the Bailey/Bell team had carried out successfully over a number of months.

Thorne described the doctors as competent, professional people, saying there was no evidence "one party or the other went on a frolic of his or her own".

He also responded to submissions that Burgess was a smoker and had an asthma problem. He told the court that Burgess had not communicated any "predisposition" to the doctors.

On Sir Richard's claim that the doctors ignored warning labels on the drugs, he took the position that doctors did not have to accept such "protocols" because there was no evidence they were produced by anyone but advertising and marketing people trying to sell a product.

Thorne argued that no evidence had been tendered "that can lead this tribunal to a finding that this team . . . caused the death of this hapless young woman".

Pilgrim, representing Bailey, said doctors who had given evidence could not help the court with what had caused Burgess' death.

There was no "smoking gun", he told the coroner.

No one was in a position to say that Voltaren, asthma or any other single factor caused the death, he argued.

There was no evidence to indicate "criminal liability", according to Pilgrim. (TY)