Dr. Peter Liu

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary, largely due to the applicant's pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to benefits for a new mattress or an in-home occupational therapy assessment, preferring the respondent's medical evidence on those issues.

However, the Tribunal granted the treatment plans for aqua-therapy, chiropractic services, and psychological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related pain and impairments.

The Tribunal also awarded a 50% special award on a nominal $87.19 chiropractic form completion fee, finding the respondent's denial of this standard fee to be unreasonable.

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 plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendant cardiologist following the sudden death of a 36-year-old man who collapsed after completing a half-marathon.

The deceased had severe aortic stenosis.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to properly advise the deceased against strenuous exercise.

The court ruled that hearsay statements by the deceased regarding the doctor's advice were inadmissible for lack of threshold reliability.

The court accepted the defendant's evidence that he had advised the deceased against distance running and warned him of the risk of sudden death.

The court found the defendant met the standard of care and dismissed the action.