A western Sydney couple is suing The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, claiming they were defamed by a medical report.

The case centres on a medical report written by a forensic paediatrician after parents Matthew and Olamide Onakoya brought their infant daughter to hospital with symptoms later found to be consistent with a brain injury. 

According to court documents, the parents allege the report conveyed an imputation that they were ‘under active suspicion by [the paediatrician] of abuse and neglect’.

The couple’s third child, Oluwatomi, was born six weeks premature on February 9, 2019, and spent the first two months of her life in hospital before being discharged into her parents’ care on April 19.

On May 12, Mr Onakoya presented Oluwatomi to the emergency department at the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, where she showed signs of a possible brain bleed.

An ultrasound of Oluwatomi’s head performed on May 29 was accompanied by a report which stated the ‘possibility’ of a ‘non-accidental injury should be considered’, court documents state.

A CT scan of Oluwatomi’s brain was also conducted in the days following, before her case was referred to the hospital’s Child Protection Unit and an MRI scan was performed on June 3.

On June 11, a forensic paediatrician from the unit prepared a report in which she suggested Oluwatomi’s presentation was ‘highly concerning for a past inflicted (shaking) injury’.

It is alleged that the report defamed the parents by conveying they were ‘under active suspicion by [the paediatrician] of abuse and neglect’

Oluwatomi was born six weeks premature in 2019

During a teleconference on the same day, the paediatrician said she stood by her opinion, but could not rule out the possibility of the injury occurring during one of Oluwatomi’s hospital stays after birth.

Courts have noted the reports did not directly state the parents had caused their daughter’s injuries, but rather that the findings were consistent with a shaking‑type injury and required explanation.

An investigation by NSW Police’s Child Abuse Unit was suspended on June 17 after the date and origin of Oluwatomi’s injuries could not be ascertained, and no sufficient evidence of an assault could be found.

A month later, a DCJ case worker emailed the paediatrician requesting additional information.

This second report by the paediatrician dated August 14, 2019, included the following view:

‘The findings on imaging of Oluwatomi’s head could be explained by a shaking injury having occurred on 12 May 2019, at the time the symptoms occurred as reported by Oluwatomi’s parents.’

The parents’ defamation claim is based on the meaning they say is conveyed by this report, according to court documents. 

Following this report, the Joint Child Protection Response Program decided they had enough evidence to substantiate that Mr and Mrs Onakoya had physically harmed their daughter, and listed them as ‘Persons Causing Harm’.

For the next two years, Mr Onakoya made consistent complaints about the investigation’s outcome.

A trial date is yet to be set 

Sydney Children’s Hospital Network is the defendant in the proceedings

The supporting material Mr Onakoya submitted included a neurosurgeon’s opinion on Oluwatomi’s MRI scan from June 3.

The neurosurgeon suggested the blood shown in the scan was older than 28 days, which the parents say made it unlikely the injury occurred around the time she presented to the emergency department.

Mr Onakoya also included the clinical notes of two separate doctors, who raised concerns about the possibility of Oluwatomi suffering seizures before her original discharge on 19 April.

As a result of Mr Onakoya’s efforts, a review was commenced by the DCJ in July 2021, which found insufficient grounds to support the original assessment.

On November 1 that year, Mr and Mrs Onakoya were emailed about the new finding, and informed they would cease being listed as ‘Persons Causing Harm’ on the DCJ database.

‘In light of new information provided by you and the associated inconsistencies and time frames, there is insufficient evidence to conclude on the balance of probabilities that you are persons who caused harm to your child,’ the email stated.

The email also apologised for any distress caused by the original decision.

In the original statement of claim filed in April 2022, which was included as part of a personal injury claim, the Onakoyas submitted their reputation had suffered greatly.

They also submitted they had suffered ’emotional and financial damage attempting to have DCJ review its decision and clear their names’.

The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network, which operates the Children’s Hospital Westmead, has denied the report was defamatory, while accepting it was ‘capable’ of conveying a meaning that the parents were under suspicion.

A trial date has yet to be set; however, the proceedings have been mired by procedural wrangling ever since Mr Onakoya first filed a statement of claim in 2022.

Last week, a published decision by the Supreme Court shows the Onakoyas were unsuccessful in having the hospital’s defences – including statutory immunity, justification and qualified privilege – struck out before trial.

It is expected that the evidence of the forensic paediatrician will be central to the trial.

The hospital is relying on legal defences including statutory immunity under child protection laws, which protect professionals who share information in good faith.