O&G · Professional practice — ethics, law and regulation
Medico-legal frameworks in O&G
Also known as Medical negligence · Bolam test · Bolitho proviso · Montgomery consent · Rogers v Whitaker · AHPRA notification · Mandatory reporting · Coronial process · Expert witness · Open disclosure · National Law s141
Exam-exhaustive FRANZCOG professional reference on Australian medico-legal frameworks: the four-stage negligence test (duty, breach, causation, harm), the standard of care from Bolam to Bolitho to Montgomery/Rogers, the three elements of valid consent, defensible documentation, the role of expert witnesses, the coronial process after maternal and perinatal death, AHPRA notification (voluntary and mandatory under National Law s141), the differential thresholds for treating versus non-treating practitioners, and the open-disclosure framework. RANZCOG-primary, globally tagged to MRCOG, ABOG, FRCSC, MRCPI.
Practise this topic
On this page
Study tools
Your progress
Saved on this device.
Target exams
Red flags
- Treating a signed consent form as the consent itself — the conversation is the consent, the form is the evidence
- Quoting a 1% cut-off for a material risk — Montgomery and Rogers reject any fixed percentage threshold
- Continuing to engage with a coroner, AHPRA investigator or plaintiff lawyer without first notifying your medical defence organisation
- Notifying AHPRA on gossip, rumour or speculation — the statutory test is reasonable belief on reasonable grounds
- Failing to report a death to the coroner because 'it was an expected complication' — the test is the unexpectedness of the outcome, not the underlying condition
- Writing a late, amended or back-dated note after an adverse event — the note that loses the case is the one written after the complaint arrived
It is 02:40 in a tertiary unit. The CTG has been pathological for 45 minutes, the registrar has not escalated, and a baby is born with severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. Before the family are even told, the phone is ringing. It may be a complaint, a coroner's office, the Medical Board, the media, or a plaintiff's lawyer. The clinical catastrophe is the headline; the medico-legal catastrophe is what you do in the next four hours. This topic is the rehearsal.[1][6]
Overview and definition
A medico-legal framework is the overlapping architecture of tort law (compensation for negligent harm to a patient), statute (the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and the state Coroners Acts), regulation (AHPRA, the Medical Board of Australia, the Medical Council of New Zealand) and professional standards (RANZCOG statements, the MBA Code of Conduct, the HDC Code). The same adverse outcome may trigger any or all of these pathways.[6][7][12]
In civil negligence, the patient must prove on the balance of probabilities that the doctor owed a duty of care, breached the standard, caused the harm, and that the harm is compensable. In regulation, the Board or Tribunal asks whether the practitioner's conduct fell below the standard expected of the profession. In a coroner, the question is narrower: who died, how, when, where and by what means, and what could be learned. Each forum has its own burden of proof and its own threshold for action.[6][12][13]
References16ShowHide
- [1]High Court of Australia Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 High Court of Australia, 1992.Source
- [2]House of Lords Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 House of Lords, 1957.Source
- [3]House of Lords Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 House of Lords, 1998.Source
- [4]United Kingdom Supreme Court Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 UK Supreme Court, 2015.Source
- [5]Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency Guidelines for mandatory notifications AHPRA, 2024.Source
- [6]Medical Board of Australia Good medical practice: a code of conduct for doctors in Australia Medical Board of Australia, 2020.Source
- [7]Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists College statements and guidelines (current versions) RANZCOG, 2026.Source
- [8]Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Consent and provision of information to patients regarding proposed treatment (C-Gen 2) RANZCOG, 2026.Source
- [9]Health and Disability Commissioner Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights New Zealand Government, 1996.Source
- [10]Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Australian Open Disclosure Framework ACSQHC, 2013.Source
- [11]Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care National Model Clinical Governance Framework ACSQHC, 2017.Source
- [12]Australian Government Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (the National Law) Queensland Government, 2009.Source
- [13]Parliament of New South Wales Coroners Act 2009 (NSW) NSW Government, 2009.Source
- [14]Smith MK, Carver T Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy? J Med Ethics, 2018.PMID 29572339
- [15]Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Implementing the Australian Open Disclosure Framework in maternity services ACSQHC, 2023.Source
- [16]Health and Disability Commissioner Guidance on open disclosure: lessons learnt HDC, 2023.Source