A general practitioner was cleared of alleged professional misconduct today after a court ruled that his misdiagnosis of bursitis when the patient in fact suffered from necrotizing fascitis was not the result of negligence.
Mr Justice Anthony Ellul in the First Hall of the Civil Court delivered the judgment following an action for damages filed by Stephen Micallef against Dr Raymond Fenech.
Mr Micallef told the court that he had consulted Dr Fenech on July 28 2008 when he was suffering pain in his right hand. Dr Fenech diagnosed Mr Micallef as suffering from bursitis and administered an injection in the hand. Another injection was administered by Dr Fenech a few days later, but Mr Micallef's condition did not improve and he was eventually examined at Mater Dei hospital where he was found to be suffering from necrotizing fascitis, which was a rare and potentially fatal illness.
Mr Micallef requested the court to find that Dr Fenech had acted negligently and to award him damages.
On his part Dr Fenech always claimed that he had acted correctly and in a professional manner, and denied responsibility for any damages suffered by Mr Micallef.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Ellul pointed out that a mistake or a misdiagnosis made by a doctor was not necessarily the result of negligence. It resulted that Dr Fenech had diagnosed Mr Micallef as suffering from bursitis which was an inflammation of fluid around the joints. It was only after Mr Micallef was admitted to hospital on the following day and tests were carried out by the Department of Histopathology that it resulted that he was suffering from necrotizing fascitis.
This latter condition, said the court, was extremely rare and was difficult to diagnose without laboratory tests. The condition was serious infection which could potentially lead to death. In fact, the surgeon who had operated on Mr Micallef said that the condition was only diagnosed after tests were carried out, and the specialists had not suspected it a cause of Mr Micallef's illness until other serious options were excluded.
The court added that none of the three consultants who had examined Mr Micallef in Hospital had suspected necrotizing fascitis to be the cause of his illness until laboratory tests were carried out.
It also resulted that it was Dr Fenech who had referred Mr Micallef to hospital when his condition did not improve.
Mr Justice Ellul concluded that Dr Fenech was not guilty of professional negligence and had acted in a manner to be expected from a general practitioner. Mr Micallef's claims were therefore dismissed.