2 total
The court excluded the Crown's proposed medical expert in a murder trial for lacking specific expertise.
This ruling addresses the admissibility of proposed Crown expert opinion evidence from Dr. Mark Crowther in a first-degree murder trial against Dr. Brian Nadler.
Dr. Nadler is accused of causing the deaths of four patients through the administration of narcotics and sedatives.
The Crown sought to introduce Dr. Crowther's "holistic" analysis, which contradicted the findings of forensic pathologists who concluded the deaths were due to natural causes.
The court, applying the Mohan criteria, found that Dr. Crowther, a hematologist, lacked the specific expertise in forensic pathology, toxicology, palliative care, or acute COVID-19 treatment relevant to the complex medical issues at hand.
Despite his impressive general credentials, the court determined his expertise was not properly connected to the material issues, posing a risk that his general impressiveness would give his opinion undue weight.
Consequently, Dr. Crowther's expert opinion evidence was ruled inadmissible.
Summary judgment Motion granted
The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against several physician and hospital defendants following the death of his common-law spouse from aggressive brain cancer.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of expert evidence to establish professional negligence and causation, and that the duty to obtain informed consent rested with the physicians, not the hospital pharmacies.
The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff's expert evidence was insufficient and causation was not established.