Dr. Edwin Brankston

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against an emergency room physician following the death of their 27-year-old daughter from a cerebellar stroke.

The patient had presented to the emergency department with nausea, vomiting, and weakness, and was discharged with a diagnosis of intoxication.

The next day, she was found at home with severe trauma and a massive stroke, from which she died.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician met the standard of care, as the patient exhibited no focal neurological signs warranting a gait assessment or CT scan.

The court also found that causation was not proven, accepting expert evidence that the stroke likely occurred the following day due to trauma.

The plaintiff attended the emergency department with symptoms of dizziness, nausea, and facial weakness, and a referral note from his family doctor requesting to rule out a stroke.

The defendant emergency physician diagnosed peripheral vertigo and Bell's Palsy, and discharged the plaintiff without conducting a gait assessment or consulting a neurologist.

The plaintiff returned the next day with a severe basilar artery occlusion, resulting in catastrophic long-term disabilities.

The court found the defendant breached the standard of care and that, but for this breach, the plaintiff would have received timely recanalization treatment with a successful outcome.

The defendant's request for a 25% discount on the agreed damages was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the deceased's family physician following the deceased's sudden cardiac death.

The plaintiffs alleged the physician breached the standard of care by failing to elicit symptoms of coronary artery disease during a periodic health examination and by failing to send a referral for a stress test.

The court found the physician met the standard of care during the examination.

While the physician admitted breaching the standard of care by failing to send the referral later, the court concluded this breach did not cause the death, as the deceased would not have received treatment before his death due to specialist wait times, and the fatal arrhythmia was likely caused by pre-existing scarring rather than an acute ischemic event.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a medical malpractice action: one to compel defendant physicians Dr. Fadie Amin and Dr. Anton Helman to answer refusals from discovery, and another for leave to amend their statement of claim to include additional differential diagnoses.

The court analyzed the principles governing hypothetical questions in discovery and the test for amending pleadings.

The refusals motion was largely granted against Dr. Helman, with several questions ordered to be answered or clarified, while largely dismissed against Dr. Amin.

The motion for leave to amend the statement of claim was granted, allowing the plaintiffs to specify additional serious conditions the defendants allegedly failed to consider.

Family members brought a medical negligence action after a hospital patient died from viral myocarditis shortly after presenting to the emergency department.

A civil jury found two treating physicians liable and awarded $600,000 in damages.

On appeal, the physicians argued the trial judge made multiple procedural and instructional errors, including permitting further discovery at trial, limiting expert evidence, improperly charging the jury on standard of care and causation, misphrasing the causation question, misdirecting the jury on agreement requirements, and refusing to poll the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that most alleged errors were unfounded and that the causation wording error in the verdict questions caused no substantial wrong because the jury was repeatedly instructed on the correct “but for” test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant emergency room physician appealed a trial judgment finding him liable in negligence for the death of a patient from bacterial meningitis.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by failing to consider meningitis, perform a lumbar puncture, or administer standard treatment when the patient presented with confusion, fever, and a history of decreased consciousness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the patient's mental status, her reliance on an infectious disease specialist's standard of care evidence, or her causation analysis applying the 'but for' test.

A Sanderson costs order against the appellant was also upheld.

The plaintiff sued her physician for medical malpractice, alleging he negligently managed her right forearm pain by failing to properly assess and investigate a bump that was eventually diagnosed as a rare synovial sarcoma.

The defendant physician had diagnosed repetitive strain injury and reflex sympathetic dystrophy, treating the plaintiff with psychotherapy and medication for nine years before ordering an MRI.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendant breached the standard of care of a primary care physician by failing to include a tumour in his differential diagnosis, failing to properly monitor the lump, and failing to order an MRI earlier.

The court also found that this breach caused the plaintiff's damages, as an earlier MRI would have led to earlier surgical removal of the tumour and eliminated years of pain.

The plaintiff sought to add an orthopaedic surgeon as a co-defendant to a medical malpractice action nearly ten years after the surgery, alleging that the surgeon fraudulently concealed an intraoperative event.

The Master granted the motion to add the surgeon with leave to plead a limitation period defence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff and his counsel knew or ought to have known of the potential claim against the surgeon shortly after the surgery.

The court held that there was no fraudulent concealment and that the claim against the surgeon was statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add a surgeon as a defendant in a medical negligence action after the action had already been set down for trial.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion on the basis that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that there were genuine issues of fact and credibility regarding discoverability, including allegations that the proposed defendant failed to disclose an intra‑operative complication and may have misled the plaintiff’s counsel.

Applying the approach in Wong v. Adler, the court determined that such factual disputes should not be resolved on a motion to amend.

The surgeon was therefore added as a defendant with leave to plead a limitation defence.