Dr. Daniel Wong

This is an appeal in a medical malpractice case where the appellant, Dr. Marshall Zaitlen, challenged a jury's verdict finding him liable for damages to Sean Henry due to a delayed diagnosis of a spinal dural arteriovenous (SDAV) fistula.

The appellant argued that the jury's finding on the standard of care was unreasonable, their explanations for conclusions revealed non-judicial conduct, and the future income loss award was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict.

The court held that the jury's conclusions on breach of standard of care and causation were reasonable and supported by expert evidence, emphasizing the high deference accorded to civil jury verdicts and their explanations when read holistically.

The court also found the damages award for future income loss to be reasonable and consistent with the evidence, allowing for a finding of early retirement due to the injuries.

This decision provides reasons for rulings made during a medical malpractice jury trial concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court addresses objections from both the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding whether expert opinions proffered in testimony exceeded the substance of their expert reports.

The rulings clarify the application of the 'latency' principle, which permits experts to explain and amplify opinions 'latent in' or 'touched on' by their reports, but not to introduce new fields of opinion without leave, especially where it would cause prejudicial surprise or undue delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of a vocational assessment, from her auto insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and not related to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objective medical evidence, including CT and MRI scans, established that the applicant suffered from disc herniation and radiculopathy caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested physiotherapy, chiropractic, psychological services, and vocational assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits with interest, and no costs were awarded to either party.