Our client was a 38 year old woman who suffered injuries as a result of dental treatment she received in Queensland. Our client consulted a dentist for treatment in relation to an infection in her wisdom tooth.
This very sad matter involved a Central Coast man who suffered a work accident whilst employed as a sand blaster working at a port in Queensland. He was sitting in a stationary position over a period of three and a half days with minimal movement and in the course of lifting up one of the machines he felt a severe pain in his back.
The Plaintiff, who was aged 12 at the time of the accident, was walking along the footpath with her cousin when a motor vehicle mounted the footpath and struck the Plaintiff’s cousin. The cousin was taken to hospital where she remained on life support for a period before her life support was turned off and she died directly attributed to the motor vehicle accident.
Our client underwent a lap band surgery in 2005 under the hands of a surgeon. The procedure failed to adequately control our client’s weight and therefore the surgeon advised him to undergo a laparoscopic gastric bypass in 2009.
Roseneder v Roseneder  was an application heard by Justice Ryrie, pursuant to section 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The section allows a claim to be made outside the statutory limitation by extending the limitation by one year.
On the 25th of January 2012 the plaintiff developed a stabbing pain in the left side of her head and when she bent over to dry her dog. With the pain continued for a while and the plaintiff’s husband called an ambulance.
On 1 May 2011 at about 9:30pm the Plaintiff, Mr Mashaghati was driving his motorcycle along Synnum Road in Brisbane. In the opposite direction another motor vehicle being driven by the first defendant was travelling westbound on Synnum Road and did a U-turn across the lane the Plaintiff was travelling on.
His Honour Justice Reid in the matter of Ingersole v Nancarrow  had turned his mind to an interesting dilemma of how much weight to give a change in lifestyle when determining its effects on a claim for economic loss.
At the time of the accident the Plaintiff was a 23-year-old female. She enjoyed a range of sporting and recreational activities, lived in her own apartment independent of her parents. She had steady employment with good promotional prospects.