Have any questions? Call us: 
Zoran Wallases attended national medical group Holdsworth House’s Sydney practice on several occasions for treatment in 2018. He consulted Dr Robert Burton once, on 30 May, and then saw and Associate Professor Mark Bloch on 13 July, 3 August and 13 August.
But not until November 2018 was secondary syphilis diagnosed at Royal North Shore Hospital.
Zoran claimed the untreated infection had caused injury to his left eye, including blurred vision requiring a vitrectomy, cervical-spine problems, psychiatric and psychological injury, shock and broader bodily and psychological trauma.
His lawsuit alleged that had the infection been diagnosed in July, he probably would have been spared the drastic consequences that he sustained.
The doctors accepted they owed Wallases a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in examining, diagnosing and treating him.
They contended though they had not breached that duty and even if they had, their oversight did not originate or amplify the patient’s symptoms.
Urologist James Lynch – called by Wallases – testified that a more comprehensive STI assessment should have been pursued at Holdsworth House rather than the limited testing undertaken.
He considered that further investigation was a reasonably available response to a foreseeable and non-insignificant risk, on the assumption that Wallases had at the relevant appointments.
At the close of his case before Justice Greg Sirtes, the doctors applied to have it dismissed on the basis that even if his evidence was taken at its highest, it was insufficient sustain a ruling that the diagnosis delay by the Holdsworth House doctors was responsible for the disease related symptoms that ultimately developed.
To test that submission, the judge accepted a syphilis diagnosis ought to have been suspected and a reasonable practitioner ought to have investigated his symptoms more thoroughly.
And he examined the evidence to determine at which of the consultations might the disease have been present in the patient and diagnosed.
Physician, Professor Phillip Braslins had placed the onset of the disease after 13 July 2018 and at least a week before 9 November. Dr Burton’s one consultation had occurred on 30 May, before the infection could have been present. The claim against him therefore could not succeed. The timing also removed the first consultation with Dr Bloch from the ambit of liability in the case.
On that approach, the judge was nevertheless prepared to assume – for the purposes of the strike out application – that Wallases had syphilis at the time of the two consultations in August.
That left Wallases to show, on the balance of probabilities, that a correct diagnosis either on 3 August or 13 August and timely treatment thereafter would have prevented some of the complications or made them less severe.
His case fell short. There was no admissible evidence to what earlier treatment would probably have achieved. Proving only that earlier testing was important, or that it might have produced a better outcome, was not enough.
In the absence of evidence that earlier intervention would probably have changed the outcome, Wallases’ case was dismissed.
Wallases v Burton [2026] NSWSC 486 Sirtes J, 8 May 2026 Read case
Categories: Medical Negligence