The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for the respondent's psychiatric injury, which developed after the doctor failed to promptly disclose a talar fracture in the respondent's ankle.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that factual causation was established on the 'but for' test, as the respondent would not have suffered the psychiatric harm had the doctor disclosed the fracture.
The Court also found that legal causation was established, as it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of the doctor-patient trust could cause a recognized psychiatric illness in a person of ordinary fortitude.
The appeal was dismissed, and the damages and costs awards were upheld.
