Your doctor switched to telehealth because of the fuel crisis — and something was missed. Does that matter legally?
You may have read about the fuel crisis pushing doctors to consult remotely. Or perhaps you have already lived it — a video call instead of an appointment, a symptom described but not examined, a result that came back worse than it should have.
For some people, that shift to telehealth was fine. For others, something was missed that a physical examination would have caught. If you are in the second group, you are probably wondering whether the circumstances — the policy, the directive, the screen — change anything about your rights.
This article explains what doctors are still required to do when they consult remotely, where telehealth creates specific risks of harm, and what to look at if you think something went wrong.
What doctors are still required to do — regardless of how they see you
Australian law requires every doctor to meet the same standard of care whether they see a patient in person or on a screen. A regulatory direction to prefer telehealth does not lower that standard. It does not excuse a doctor from examining what needs to be examined, referring when referral is warranted, or recognising when a remote consultation is not adequate for the presenting problem.
The standard shifts in one specific way: a competent doctor using telehealth must recognise the limits of what they can assess remotely — and act on those limits. That means either arranging an in-person review or being explicit with the patient about what cannot be assessed and why.
A patient describes chest tightness and shortness of breath during a telehealth appointment. The doctor asks questions, does not arrange auscultation or an ECG, and attributes the symptoms to anxiety. Three days later, the patient presents to an emergency department with a pulmonary embolism. The telehealth policy did not require the doctor to miss that presentation. It required the doctor to recognise that a video call was not sufficient — and to act accordingly.
When the screen becomes the reason nothing was examined
Telehealth creates a specific failure pattern: the doctor treats the format as a reason not to examine, rather than a limitation that requires a workaround. A patient describes a lump, a rash, an abdomen that is tender to touch. The doctor cannot see it clearly. Instead of arranging an in-person review, the doctor reassures and monitors.
That is not a telehealth problem. That is a clinical judgement failure that telehealth made easier to make. The format did not cause the harm — the decision not to escalate caused the harm.
When a policy direction becomes a reason to delay referral
Some doctors, operating under a directive to minimise in-person contact, delayed referrals that should have been made promptly. A patient with worsening neurological symptoms was told to monitor at home. A patient with a suspicious skin lesion was asked to send a photograph rather than attend a dermatologist. The policy created a permission structure for delay — but it did not change what the clinical situation required.
Australian law is clear that a systemic policy does not override a doctor’s individual obligation to the patient in front of them. Where a referral was clinically indicated, the fuel crisis did not make it optional.
When consent to telehealth was never properly given
A patient has the right to understand what a telehealth consultation can and cannot assess. If a doctor moved a consultation to video without explaining that certain aspects of the examination would not be possible — and without offering an alternative — that patient did not give informed agreement to the limitations of that format.
Where harm followed from something that could only have been detected in person, the absence of that conversation matters. The doctor had an obligation to explain the gap. Many did not.
- Your doctor moved your appointment to telehealth and you described a physical symptom that was never examined — and your condition worsened after that consultation.
- A referral you needed was delayed or not made, and the doctor cited the need to avoid unnecessary travel or in-person contact as the reason.
- You were told to monitor symptoms at home during a period when telehealth was being actively promoted — and those symptoms turned out to be something serious.
- You had a telehealth consultation some time ago, the outcome was poor, and you have only recently started to wonder whether the format played a role in what was missed.
- You were never told that the telehealth format meant certain things could not be assessed — and you would have attended in person if you had known that.
The records — not anyone’s recollection — will show what the doctor documented, what they assessed, and what they decided not to do. Many people do not think about a telehealth consultation as a potential legal matter until months or years later, when the full picture of what was missed becomes clear. Time limits apply in every Australian state and territory, and they vary — so the timing of when you look into this matters.
What happens if you want to look into it
A legal review of a telehealth-related harm starts with the records: the consultation notes, any referral decisions, what was documented about the patient’s presentation, and what the clinical guidelines required for that presentation at that time. The question is whether a competent doctor, using telehealth appropriately, would have done something different — and whether that difference would have changed the outcome.
The goal is an honest answer. Not to assign blame for a difficult period in the health system, but to establish whether what happened to you was avoidable — and whether you are entitled to something as a result.
Not sure whether what was missed during a telehealth consultation should have been caught?
Dr Rosemary Listing reviews the records and gives you a straight answer. No obligation, no pressure — just clarity.
For more on how medical negligence claims work in Australia, visit Reframe Legal — Medical Negligence.
Dr Rosemary Listing is a lawyer specialising in medical negligence claims, with a PhD in medical negligence. She practises through Peter Evans & Associates, servicing clients across Australia.
Her background allows her to read medical records — and then apply the law to what she finds. For telehealth-related harm, that perspective matters: the failures that cause harm often sit in the gap between what the records show the doctor assessed and what the clinical situation actually required.
Dr Listing’s work is focused on giving people an honest answer about whether what happened to them was avoidable. Many people wait a long time before looking into it. She understands why and applies a sensitive and caring approach to all her clients’ cases.
- Medical Republic, “Don’t waste petrol if telehealth is an option” — reporting on the Australian health practitioner regulator’s direction to doctors to conduct telehealth consultations where possible in light of the fuel crisis.
- Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) — regulatory guidance on telehealth standards and practitioner obligations during periods of disrupted access to in-person care.
- Medical Board of Australia — Good Medical Practice: A Code of Conduct for Doctors in Australia (current edition), setting out the standard of care applicable to all consultations regardless of format.
- Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 — High Court of Australia, establishing the standard of care applicable to medical practitioners in Australia, including the obligation to disclose material risks and limitations of treatment.
- Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld); Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic); Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA); Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA); Civil Liability Act 2002 (Tas) — state legislation governing negligence claims, including time limits for bringing a claim.
- Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 — High Court of Australia, on causation in medical negligence claims.
This article contains general legal information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not create a lawyer–client relationship. The law applicable to medical negligence claims varies by state and territory in Australia. Each person’s circumstances differ. Time limits apply to legal claims in Australia and vary by jurisdiction. Seek independent legal advice about your specific situation.