Dr. Stephen Brown

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against his family physician, alleging the physician failed to diagnose and treat a respiratory infection over several months.

The plaintiff was eventually hospitalized and required invasive surgery for streptococcal empyema, resulting in chronic pain and other ailments.

The court found that while the plaintiff did suffer from respiratory symptoms prior to his hospitalization, he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he reported these symptoms to the defendant during his monthly visits.

The court held that the defendant met the standard of care of a reasonable family physician and dismissed the action.

The defendant plastic surgeon brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a medical negligence and lack of informed consent action arising from an abdominoplasty.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to meet the standard of care and failed to disclose the risk of skin necrosis.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence establishing a breach of the standard of care or causation.

Furthermore, the court used its enhanced fact-finding powers to conclude that the material risks were disclosed and that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have proceeded with the surgery.

During a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought to qualify an anesthesiologist as an expert in chronic pain.

The court permitted the expert to testify regarding his diagnosis, observations, and prognosis of the plaintiff's chronic pain.

However, applying the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, the court restricted the expert from opining on whether the accident caused the pain or whether the impairments met the statutory threshold for damages, reserving those ultimate issues for the jury.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $35,000 in general damages and $20,000 in past loss of income for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment from chronic pain, she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her ongoing complaints were caused by the accident rather than pre-existing severe degenerative disc disease.

Furthermore, the court found that the impairment was not 'serious' within the meaning of the Insurance Act, as she was able to work and perform most tasks of daily living.

The threshold motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages.