COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: MERVAT S. A. RASHWAN and MAGDY A. RASHWAN (plaintiffs (appellants)) – and – WOMEN’S COLLEGE HOSPITAL AND STAFF (defendant (respondent))
BEFORE: ABELLA, LASKIN AND SIMMONS JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Mervat S. A. Rashwan, in person Kristin L. Taylor, for the respondent
HEARD: February 20, 2003
On appeal from the order of Justice M. L. Lack on a summary judgment motion dated August 1, 2002.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally: February 20, 2003
1The appellant’s main submission is that a failure to change the dressing after the operation caused the infection.
2He relies on the hospital’s expert, Dr. McNeely, to support his submission that there was some evidence to support a finding of negligence. In particular, he relies on Dr. McNeely’s statements that “there is very little evidence that post-operative dressing changes make any difference in the evidence of surgical wound infections” and that the application of the same dressing would “not necessarily” cause infection. His submission is that these observations demonstrate that it cannot be said that no evidence of negligence existed and that there is, therefore, a genuine issue for trial.
1Dr. McNeely’s evidence was that “if upon inspection a wound was observed as dry and clean, then the re-application would be appropriate”. The hospital records show that the wound was clean and dry for four days prior to the infection being diagnosed. At his conclusion of his affidavit, Dr. McNeely observed that “I see nothing in my review of this material to support the claims of the plaintiff of negligence or incompetence on the part of the staff of Women’s College Hospital.” The appellant led no evidence to contradict the evidence of Dr. McNeely on causation.
2We see no likelihood of success and no genuine issue for trial and would therefore dismiss the appeal.
“R.S. Abella J.A.”
“John Laskin J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”