Former New York artist Michael Stewart wins High Court appeal after $2m payout from hospital negligence case

An artist who was left with brain damage due to negligent treatment at a Queensland hospital – winning only $2.17m in a payout – has secured a landmark legal win from Australia’s highest court. Michael Stewart, a former graphic artist based in New York, was awarded the damages by Queensland’s Supreme Court in 2024, after taking the Metro North Hospital and Health Service (MNHHS) to court for injuries he sustained while being treated at Redcliffe Hospital in 2016. The MNHHS admitted it breached its duty in caring for Mr Stewart, then 63, when he was suffering from nausea and “generalised abdominal pain”. He suffered bowel perforations, sepsis, cardiac arrest and stroke and was left with brain damage, needing a colostomy bag and experiencing pain on the right side of his body with “no active movement in the right upper limb”. By the time the matter went to trial in 2023, Mr Stewart was 71 and had an estimated life expectancy of five years. Following the medical incident, he was transferred to Ozanam Villa Aged Care Facility in Clontarf but his condition continued to deteriorate due to a lack of therapy and exercise. Medical experts said Mr Stewart would benefit from additional care at home, as opposed to residential care. Mr Stewart was awarded $2.19m by the Supreme Court – later reduced to $2.17m by the Court of Appeal. Initially, he sought up to $15m in compensation. In a landmark ruling on Wednesday, the High Court of Australia allowed Mr Stewart’s subsequent appeal and set aside both orders and costs from the lower courts. Mr Stewart had sought to have care provided at his home so he could live more comfortably. The Supreme Court initially ruled Mr Stewart could cover for his own costs of home care and a higher compensation from the MNHHS – which reflected would be “unreasonable”. But the High Court disputed this. “The approach taken to reasonableness was erroneous,” the High Court judgment states. “The proper starting point was that Mr Stewart was entitled to compensation in a sum which, so far as money can do, would put him in the same position as he would have been in had MNHHS not acted negligently.” The judgment states Mr Stewart’s response was not discharged by balancing only the health benefits against the increased cost. “In his circumstances, the choice of home care by Mr Stewart was a reasonable means of repairing the consequences of the tort,” the judgment continues. “The MNHHS did not establish that part or all of that claimed cost of home care could be avoided but for an unreasonable decision by Mr Stewart to refuse a proffered alternative option.” The matter will now be remitted to the Supreme Court for an assessment of damages and consequential orders. The MNHHS was also ordered to pay Mr Stewart’s costs. The High Court concluded Mr Stewart’s choice to opt for home care was a “reasonable” response to repair the consequences of his personal injury. He was not permitted to keep his dog, Sasha, at the aged care centre. During the Supreme Court trial Mr Stewart’s son, Jesse, also alleged he was not allowed to stay overnight and visits required advance notice of at least a day. “Mr Stewart’s quality of life and mental health would be enhanced by receiving care at home rather than at Ozanam,” the High Court judgment states. “The real physical health benefits were … not slight or speculative.”