Can you still sue a doctor 20 years after surgery?
Briggs v Hillier [2025] NSWSC 1021: Proving Historical Medical Negligence Claims
When patients experience pain years — or even decades — after surgery, it’s natural to wonder whether something went wrong during the original procedure. But as a recent Supreme Court decision shows, proving negligence long after the event is rarely straightforward.
In Briggs v Hillier [2025] NSWSC 1021, a woman who underwent spinal fusion surgery at just 14 years old sued her surgeon more than 20 years later. She alleged that the operation was unnecessary, performed negligently, and caused ongoing pain and disability.
The Court dismissed her claim.
What the Case Was About
The plaintiff, Erin Briggs, had back pain as a teenager and underwent uninstrumented spinal fusion in 1999. She later led a full, active life — playing sport, working, and having four children.
In her mid-thirties, she began suffering severe back pain again and claimed the original surgery had been wrong all along. She argued that the surgeon failed to recommend conservative management, didn’t warn her properly of risks, and performed a procedure no reasonable doctor would have performed.
The Court’s Findings
Justice Weinstein held that:
The surgery met peer professional standards at the time — satisfying the test under s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
The operation was reasonable, given the patient’s history of pain and failed non-surgical treatments.
There was no causal link between the 1999 operation and her current pain.
The decades-long delay in suing made it difficult to fairly assess what really happened — witness memory fades, medical standards evolve, and documents go missing.
Even if she had succeeded, her compensation would have been around $800,000 — but without proof of breach or causation, no damages were awarded.
Why This Matters
This case shows the practical and evidentiary hurdles in historical medical negligence claims. Courts require clear evidence that:
The care was below accepted standards at the time it was given; and
That failure caused the harm complained of — not simply that harm appeared later.
In long-delayed cases, both are difficult to establish. The passage of time works against plaintiffs, especially when treatment occurred under now-superseded methods or with lost medical records.
What Patients Should Know
If you believe you’ve suffered from negligent medical treatment, it’s important to get legal advice early.
Strict time limits apply, and early evidence — scans, notes, correspondence — is often what determines whether a case can be won.
At Reframe Legal, we work with patients and families to identify whether poor medical care contributed to your injury, and what legal options may still be open to you.
