Giuseppe Valentino Michelucci

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a pathologist for failing to diagnose appendiceal cancer from an appendectomy specimen in 2011.

The patient was later diagnosed with stage IV cancer in 2015 and died in 2016.

The court found that the pathologist breached the standard of care, as the cancer was obvious and should have been identified.

The court also found that but for the delayed diagnosis, the patient would likely have been cured with standard treatment.

The court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the estate and family members.

The plaintiff physician brought an action against the defendant hospital and individuals for damages arising from a de facto suspension of his hospital privileges and alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The defendants moved to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiff had not exhausted his remedies under the Public Hospitals Act (PHA), and on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process.

The court found that while the action was premature because the plaintiff had not exhausted his PHA remedies regarding the de facto suspension, the appropriate remedy was to stay the action rather than strike it.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments on res judicata and abuse of process, but struck certain paragraphs of the statement of claim that made unfounded attacks on the hospital's legal counsel, with leave to amend.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynaecologist, during which her colon was perforated, requiring subsequent reconstructive surgery.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the defendant failed to obtain informed consent, failed to review prior operative reports, lacked the skill to perform the surgery given her anatomy, and negligently caused the perforation.

The court dismissed the action, finding the defendant met the standard of care in his pre-operative advice and surgical technique, and that the bowel injury was a known complication likely caused by abnormal anatomy rather than negligence.

The plaintiff brought a class action against an anesthesiologist, a pain clinic, and its nursing staff following an outbreak of bacterial meningitis and epidural abscesses among patients who received epidural injections.

The court found that the anesthesiologist breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties by failing to use proper aseptic techniques, failing to report and investigate infections, and misinforming patients about the risks.

The court drew an inference of causation linking the anesthesiologist's substandard infection prevention and control practices to the patients' infections.

The claims against the nursing staff were dismissed as there was no evidence they breached the standard of care.

The court also found the anesthesiologist's conduct warranted punitive damages.

The Plaintiff brought a motion for directions regarding the continuation of the cross-examination of a Defendant, Dr. Fenton, on his affidavits.

The cross-examination was terminated by the Plaintiff due to alleged persistent interruptions and interference by Defence counsel.

The Plaintiff sought orders for Dr. Fenton to re-attend, for the examination to be video-recorded, and for specific rules of conduct for Defence counsel, along with costs.

The Defendants argued the cross-examination was properly ended and sought costs.

The court found Defence counsel's repetitive commentary obstructive, justifying the termination.

It ordered the continuation of the cross-examination with strict rules for counsel's objections and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.

However, the request for video recording was denied, as it is an exception under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not justified by the circumstances.

The appellant suffered a bowel leak after surgery and developed septic shock.

He sued the hospital and a nurse for delayed diagnosis and treatment, alleging nursing negligence and medication errors.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and that the appellant failed to prove causation, as his injuries were inevitable due to the onset of the sepsis cascade before the alleged negligence occurred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the 'but for' causation test.

The defendants in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Family Law Act claims of the deceased's partner, arguing he did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The defendants also moved to remove him as the litigation guardian for the deceased's minor grandchildren.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the partner's spousal status based on conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to remove the litigation guardian, finding him qualified, indifferent to the outcome, and not adverse in interest to the minors.

The respondent physician commenced an action for loss of income after his hospital privileges were temporarily restricted following an incident in the operating room.

The appellant hospital and doctors brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent had not first proceeded to a hearing before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) under the Public Hospitals Act.

The motion judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the respondent had followed through with the hospital's internal dispute resolution process, which concluded with his return to full practice, and therefore he was not required to seek a hearing before the HPARB before commencing his civil action.

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.