The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that two obstetrician-gynecologists breached the standard of care during a laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy, resulting in the transection of the plaintiff’s ureter.
The court considered expert medical evidence regarding the standard of care, the surgical technique required to protect the ureter, and whether circumstantial evidence could support an inference of negligence.
The court held that ureteric injury can occur even when surgeons exercise appropriate care and that the evidence did not establish that the surgeons deviated from accepted surgical practice.
The court accepted the defence explanation that the injury resulted from aberrant anatomy and that the procedure was performed with appropriate supervision and technique.
The plaintiffs failed to prove negligence on a balance of probabilities.
