3 total
A gynecologist was found liable in negligence for failing to detect and repair a bowel perforation during laparoscopic surgery.
The plaintiff, Hayley Szeto, brought a medical negligence claim against her gynecologist surgeon, Dr. Sari Kives, after suffering a bowel perforation during a reproductive organ surgery.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant fell below the standard of care by failing to detect and repair the perforation.
The court found that the bowel injury occurred during the surgery and was significant (1-2 cm), and that the defendant failed to adequately inspect the bowel, especially given additional risk factors like significant adhesions, uterine fundus perforation, obesity, and epiploica.
The court concluded that the defendant's failure to meet the standard of care caused the plaintiff's damages, leading to emergency surgery and severe complications.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an informed consent claim and reversed a finding of post-operative negligence, holding that expert concessions on cross-examination undermined the breach of standard of care.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her negligence claim based on lack of informed consent following a laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy performed by the respondent surgeon, during which the appellant's left ureter was transected.
The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's finding of negligence in post-operative care.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on informed consent, finding the trial judge properly applied the modified objective test and reasonably concluded that a reasonable person in the appellant's circumstances would have proceeded with surgery despite the risks.
The Court allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent breached the standard of care in post-operative management was not supported by the expert evidence, as the experts acknowledged that declining to order a CT scan on July 7, 2008 was a reasonable decision within the standard of care.
Medical malpractice action dismissed as defendants met standard of care and causation was not established.
The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the sudden death of Emilio Spirito at Trillium Health Centre.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' negligence, specifically the failure to insert a nasogastric tube, caused the deceased to aspirate fluids and die.
The court found that the defendant doctors and nurses met the standard of care in their treatment and monitoring of the deceased.
Furthermore, the court accepted expert pathology evidence that the deceased died from bilateral lobar pneumonia acquired from air-borne bacteria, meaning there was no causal connection between the alleged negligence and the death.
The action was dismissed.