Former Geelong defender sues Cats

[Ricochet]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-26/excat-egan-sues-over-injury?utm_medium=RSS

FORMER Geelong player Matthew Egan is suing over the treatment of a foot injury that ended his career in 2007. 

Egan filed a writ in the Supreme Court on Tuesday claiming damages and costs for alleged negligent treatment by Geelong doctor Chris Bradshaw and orthopedic surgeon Mark Blackney.

Egan played his final game in round 22, 2007 against the Brisbane Lions after suffering a navicular stress fracture.

He was named All Australian that season but did not play in Geelong's premiership nor add to his tally of 59 games.

In his statement of claim, Egan alleges Blackney performed surgery on Egan's foot on September 3, 2007 before the player began his rehabilitation program on September 14 in the hope he could return for the AFL Grand Final. 

On September 18, Egan alleges he suffered pain and a decision was made at that time he would miss the Grand Final.

He alleges he wasn't informed that even with an operation there was "virtually no prospect" of him playing for the Cats in the 2007 AFL Grand Final or that the average return to sport following the surgery was five months.

[Sydney_Rox]

Kind of explosive? Sounds more like poor advice than negligent from the outside?

[Capper]

But he had an injury so how was he going to play the GF any way??

[Sydney_Rox]

looks like it is more about how they handled it and he never played again

[Mailman the 2nd]

So he wanted to play in the Grand Final, but then complains he didn't know that foot injuries take way longer than that?

Not sure why that bit is even in there. Surely he'd only be able to sure for the career ending part.

I don't know how much you can sue someone over giving you bad advice

[j959]

So he wanted to play in the Grand Final, but then complains he didn't know that foot injuries take way longer than that?

Not sure why that bit is even in there. Surely he'd only be able to sure for the career ending part.

I don't know how much you can sue someone over giving you bad advice

Aus is not the USA thankfully ...

so basically my guess without knowing the details of his case is that his legal team would have to establish that the treatment was 'negligent' or deficient in some way and then have to connect this negligence to injury or damages ...

it would likely be a point of argument as to the 'quantity' of the damage (ie the cash!) ...  ;)