Halifax Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog

In any medical malpractice case the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant caused the patient’s injury, disability or death.

In many cases the initial cause of the plaintiff’s injury was not brought about by the defendant doctor. Rather, the plaintiff presented with an illness or medical condition which is misdiagnosed and, as a result, the patient doesn’t get treatment that might have cured the illness or condition (or prevented further deterioration).

Loss of Chance

Doctors will defend these cases by claiming arguing that the loss of a chance of recovery is not a recoverable head of damages in Canada (see for example the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Laferriere v. Lawson).

In order to recover damages, the plaintiff must show that the lost treatment probably would have resulted in full recovery. The lost opportunity to obtain proper medical care or the chance of recovery is not a recoverable loss.

To see how this defence plays out one need only look to the recent decision from the Ontario Supreme Court in Bennett v. Landecker.

Mr. Bennett was a long time patient of the defendant physician, Dr. Landecker. Bennett saw Dr. Landecker with a complaint of acute vision loss. Landecker examined Bennett and suspected that he was suffering from a detached retina, but could not find the detachment or any other evidence of a tear or hole in Mr. Bennett’s retina.

Dr. Landecker concluded that the probable cause of the vision loss was a retinal arterial occlusion. Dr. Landecker referred Bennett to his family doctor for follow up and suggested Bennett return in 6 weeks. Two days later Bennett suffered a total loss of vision in his eye due to his retina becoming fully detached.

Bennett was subsequently referred to Sunny Brook Hospital where he had two failed operations to reattach his retina. As a result, he suffered permanent loss of vision in his left eye.

Landecker defended the case on the basis that, at the time he examined Bennett, the detached retina was only a possibility, not a probability. His lawyers argued at the time Bennet was examined, there was only a small chance Bennet required surgery to for his retina. Therefore the defendant claimed that compensation for a mere loss of chance and should not be considered by the court or awarded compensation.

Mr. Bennett’s medical experts testified that, with timely treatment, there was a 90% to 95% chance of success of reattaching Bennett’s retina.

The court rejected the loss of chance defence. Justice Gilmore’s comments about this issue are found in paragraphs 92 and 93:

[92] The central question to be posed here is whether Mr. Bennett’s blindness in his left eye would have occurred but for the negligence of Dr. Landecker. Did his failure to provide follow- up on the possible retinal detachment diagnosis and failure to ensure that Mr. Bennett was given fulsome and proper instructions regarding any change or loss in his vision lead to retinal detachment or lead to a macula-off situation where retinal re-attachment was virtually impossible due to the length of time that had passed?

[93] In my view, the evidence supports that the answer to this question is “yes.” Although it is true that the retinal detachment likely started as early as June 24, 2005, it is also clear that the chances of complete re-attachment would have been substantially increased had Dr. Landecker arranged for a follow-up appointment a retinal specialist or some other form of follow-up the following week. Clearly such urgent follow-up was available as Dr. Landecker was able to arrange for Mr. Bennett to see Dr. Kertes at Sunnybrook on the same day that he was consulted on August 15, 2005. Again, in not following up on that possible diagnosis, Dr Landecker’s negligence was responsible to some degree for Mr. Bennett’s blindness. [Emphasis added]

Gilmore J. concluded in paragraph 100:

“Dr. Landecker’s negligence caused Mr. Bennett’s blindness in his left eye. But for Dr. Landecker’s negligence, the odds were excellent that Mr. Bennett’s retina could have been reattached and a reasonable level of vision restored… “[Emphasis added]

What’s Substantial?

How “substantial” an increase does a patient’s chance of recovery have to be before the claim is one of negligence rather than “loss of chance”?

Different types of injuries or conditions have different “success” rates with treatment. If timely treatment would increase a patient’s chance of recovery or survival by 10% is that substantial? Does the increase have to be more than 50% before it is considered to be “substantial”?

What Are “Excellent” Odds?

Different types of injuries or conditions have different morbidity (disability) and mortality (death) rates. I would argue that when considering the odds of recovery the court should not look at simply whether the patient’s chances of recovery with treatment were more than 50%. Rather the court must look at the norm, or baseline, and consider how the doctor’s misconduct changed, or reduced, the patient’s odds.

Cancer Survival Rates Different

For example take a look at the statistics from this article Cancer Survival Rates by Types of Cancer.

According to the article: “Breast cancer, the most common tumour in women, presents a high survival percentage: 83% of patients have survived this type of cancer after five years.”

I think anyone would agree that an 83% chance of survival is “excellent” odds.

On the other hand, the article says: “Lung cancer is one of the most aggressive tumours and survival after five years is very low: only 10% of patients diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm survive for more than five years.”

“Excellent” Depends on Point of View

If a doctor misdiagnoses a patient’s lung cancer and the patient dies, the patient has lost the 10% chance they had of surviving cancer. Defence counsel will argue the loss of a “mere” 10% chance of survival is not worthy of compensation.

But look at it from the patient’s point of view: Without proper diagnosis and treatment there is a 100% chance they will die. From the patients point of view, a 10% chance of survival is a “substantial increase” when compared to a 0% chance of survival.

Put another way, a 10% chance of survival is excellent odds when compared to a 100% chance of dying.

50% or Better

Unfortunately the answer to the question I posed above is that only odds of 50% or better are considered "substantial" or "excellent" the prevailing opinion of courts across Canada does not agree with the subjective approach to consideration of odds of survival.

See for example, in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Armstrong v. Centenary Health Centre, [2005] O.J. No. 2386 (Ont. C.A.). In this case, a woman’s doctor missed an early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. By the time it was detected, the cancer had progressed incurably.

“[93] I agree that the issue the trial judge was required to determine was whether it was more likely than not that Mrs. Armstrong would have survived for more than five years if the appellants had detected her cancer. There was no issue at trial that the medical standard for a cancer cure is survival for five years.”

The Court relied upon the previous decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s 2003 decision in Cottrelle et. al. v. Gerrard which stated that a chance of avoiding an unfavourable outcome is not sufficient to prove causation unless that chance meets the threshold of ‘more likely than not.’ (more than 50%).

What do you think? If a patient’s chances of survival are less than 50% and the doctor’s negligence reduces those chances even further is it fair to say that the doctor’s negligence didn’t cause or contribute the patient’s death or injury? As mathematicians would say; at what point do the patient’s chances of death or disability become “statistically significant”?

A major study conducted by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) has identified ten key areas that can help improve patient safety.

Diagnostic testing is a critical part of modern medical care. Conducting appropriate tests in a timely fashion and reporting results of testing is key to ensuring appropriate diagnosis and treatment.

Miscommunication a Risk to Patients

In today’s health care system patients may be treated, and diagnostic tests ordered, by a variety of physicians, nurses, and other health care specialists. The risks associated with miscommunication or inadequate follow up increases as the number of care providers increases and as time pressures on medical professionals increase.

The CMPA reviewed legal claims over a four year period (between 2006 and 2010) where the communication of medical and diagnostic imaging tests were alleged to have contributed to a delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis.

No Follow Up

Failure to follow up on test results or diagnostic imaging reports was the most frequent error identified during the review.

The CMPA identified a number of problems including:

1. No follow up;
2. A delay in follow up; or
3. Inadequate systems in place to ensure appropriate follow up.

Lack of Communication Can Be Deadly

For example in one case we represented the family of a man who died from sepsis after bowel surgery. Doctors determined that the patient was suffering from an infection after the surgery and prescribed antibiotics to combat the infection.

Lab tests showed the bacteria that was the source of the infection was resistant to the antibiotics that had been prescribed. In other words, the antibiotics were not effective.

The doctor claimed he wasn't aware that the antibiotics were not working because the lab results had never been communicated to him.

The patient died and we filed a claim on behalf of his surviving wife and young children.

Doctor Responsible for Follow Up

In Canada the courts have consistently held that a physician who orders a particular diagnostic test is responsible for following up on the results of the test in a timely manner.

The doctor must be satisfied that appropriate systems are in place in the physician’s office, the hospital or the laboratory to ensure test results are communicated to the ordering doctor in a timely manner.

Communication with Patients

The communication system must also ensure that appropriate steps are taken to report test results to patients and arrange for a necessary follow up care.

Unusual Results are Important

Finally, the system must ensure that unusual or clinically significant results are followed up on in a timely manner.

Key Safety Recommendations

The CMPA report contains six key recommendations that could significantly improve patient safety.

1. Create A Culture Of Patient Safety : CMPA recommends all staff be encouraged to identify and follow up on diagnostic test results. The most preventable problem is one that staff is aware of but doesn’t tell anyone about.

2. K.I.S.S.: Systems should be as simple as possible. CMPA encourages the use of tracking systems and check lists. I’ve posted in the past about studies that have found that surgical checklists dramatically improve patient safety: Surgical Checklists Save Lives: Help Prevent Medical Malpractice Claims

3. Use Technology: CMPA recommends doctors adopt technology or software that automatically reminds doctors to follow up on test results and alerts them when there has been no response. Of course no system, computerized or otherwise, can be effective unless it is actually used.

4. Prioritize: CMPA recommends that test results be prioritized as:

1. Urgent;
2. Critical;
3. Action needed; and
4. Pending results.

5. Talk to Patients: Keeping patients actively engaged in their health care can improve their safety. If patients are told why they are receiving certain tests and how long they should have to reasonably wait for the results it helps patients understand the importance of the test results for their health care and encourages them to follow up with their doctor if they haven’t received the test results in a timely manner.

6. Don’t Be An Ostrich: Keeping your head in the sand and assuming“no news is good news” is dangerous. Assuming that “someone” will notify you if test results require follow up increases patient risk.

Continue reading "Effective Management of Test Results Improves Patient’s Safety" »

Misdiagnosis Leads to Amputation

A recent ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta confirms that prompt diagnosis can mean the difference between life and death (or in this case, life and limb).

Alberta farmer Wayne Forsberg has been awarded 1.5 million dollars in compensation as a result of medical negligence on the part of emergency room physician Dr. Dadi Naidoo.

Patient Suspected an Infection

In October 2000, Mr. Forsberg began to suffer from fever, stiff neck and a rash. He suspected that he might be suffering from meningitis because public health officials in the Edmonton area had been warning the public about a recent outbreak.

Forsberg attended the emergency department at the nearest hospital in Leduc.
The emergency room nurse who performed the triage suspected Forsberg was suffering from a blood infection and advised the attending physician, Dr. Naidoo. The nurse testified at trial that she asked Dr. Naidoo twice if the patient should be given antibiotics but was instructed to hold off.

Doctor Wanted to Wait

Dr. Naidoo testified at trial that he realized Mr. Forsberg probably had a blood infection but felt that he needed to discuss the issue with an infectious disease specialist before prescribing antibiotics.

Failed Attempts

The specialist Dr. Naidoo consulted with suggested a lumbar puncture which would help narrow it down the possible diagnosis. Dr. Naidoo tried unsuccessfully to perform the puncture on two occasions, resulting in further delay.

More than three hours after Mr. Forsberg arrived at the hospital he was finally transferred to Edmonton’s Royal Alexander Hospital where he was immediately started on antibiotics.

Unfortunately, as a result of the blood clots created by the meningitis bacteria surgeons had to amputate large parts of both of Mr. Forsberg's legs and one of his arms.

Justice Dennis Thomas stated:

When faced with a “very ill man” Dr. Naidoo knew that a probable cause was bacterial infection and that there was literally nothing to lose by a very prompt attempt to treat that possible infection with antibiotics. Any medical professional should clearly have known that was the case.

Prompt Treatment Would Have Limited Injuries

Justice Thomas concluded that if Mr. Forsberg had been started on antibiotics immediately he would have lost his toes and perhaps needed some skin grafts but he would have avoided from having to suffer from the major amputations of his legs and arm.

Mr. Forsberg was awarded $270,000 for non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering and over $1 million dollars to compensate for business losses as a result of him having to sell his farm.

Prompt and Effective Treatment Critical

This case highlights the pressures on emergency room staff to effectively triage and diagnosis potential illness.

Differential Diagnosis Method

When diagnosing a potential illness doctors are supposed to use what is called the “differential diagnosis” method.

Basically the process requires the doctor to create a list of all the possible causes of the signs and symptoms that the patient suffered from.

The doctor is then required to conduct tests or investigations to rule in (or rule out) the potential causes until the doctor arrives at a final diagnosis.

Dangerous or life threatening illnesses are supposed to be placed at the top of the differential diagnosis list because, as the Forsberg case illustrates, they can have dire consequences.

More Information

"What is a Differential Diagnosis and Why is it Critical to My Care?"

Continue reading "Farmer Receives 1.5 Million Dollars for Emergency Room Negligence - Forsberg v. Naidoo" »

A diagnostic error, or misdiagnosis, happens when a doctor (or other health care professional) reaches an incorrect conclusion about what is wrong with you.

In Canada up to 7.5% of patients experience some form of diagnostic error.

Why Diagnostic Errors Happen

There are many reasons why diagnostic errors can happen including:

Lack of information: Sometimes patients do not provide a complete or accurate medical history. If a doctor is not aware of significant signs or symptoms that the patient is suffering from they may not be able to accurately diagnose the patient’s problem.

Multiple doctors: When a patient is treated by several different doctors there may be problems with communicating information between health care professionals. When each doctor has one piece of the puzzle and they don’t all communicate to put the pieces together then diagnostic errors can occur.

Diagnostic inertia: If one doctor doesn't conduct a thorough examination and create a complete differential diagnosis list other doctors may follow the same incorrect path created by the initial misdiagnosis.

Failure to order or follow-up on test results: If a doctor fails to order an appropriate test or follow-up on the results of tests that they have ordered, patient safety can be jeopardized.

An Example

In one case we were involved in the emergency room doctor ordered blood tests on my client. The test results (that came back about an hour after my client was discharged from the emergency room) showed that he had a severe infection. The doctor did not notify the patient. The infection advanced to the point where it caused an abscess to my client’s spine and he became paralyzed.

10 Tips to Prevent Diagnostic Errors

1. After your doctor examines you ask for their “differential diagnosis”. Ask your doctor for the condition or conditions that they suspect and the reasons for their diagnosis.

2. Alternatives: Ask your doctor if there are any other reasonable alternative diagnosis for the signs and symptoms that you are suffering from.

3. Get an advocate: Many people are not comfortable questioning their doctor. Ask a family member or a friend to attend your examinations and take notes.

4. Make a list: Create a list of all of your symptoms. Go from the top of your head down to your toes and list all of the problems, signs and symptoms that you are concerned about. Record the time of day that the symptoms occurred and how long they lasted. Provide this information to your doctors when they examine you.

5. Medical history: If you see a doctor for the first time, write down a brief medical history including any past medical problems, any medications that you are taking, any allergies and any past medical conditions or surgeries.

6. Follow-up: Many diagnostic errors happen because tests are ordered but the doctor fails to read the test results when they are completed. If you are in the hospital ask your doctor for the results of your tests. If your family doctor has ordered tests, call back and ask for copies of the test results.

7. Google is your friend: After your doctor tells you their diagnosis, research the condition online so you know what signs and symptoms to look for.

8. Get a second opinion: You are entitled to ask your doctor for a second opinion. If you are not comfortable doing this ask a friend or family member to advocate for you.

9. Repeat tests: If you are still concerned about your ongoing symptoms ask your doctor to repeat the diagnostic tests.

10. Communication: The most important way to prevent diagnostic errors is to make sure there is full and open communication between you and your doctors. Tell your doctor about any questions or concerns that you have.

Nobody knows your body better then you do and the more information you are able to provide your doctor, the better he or she will be able to accurately diagnose your illness.

Continue reading "Patient Safety: 10 Tips to Prevent Diagnostic Errors " »

Doctors are still doing everything they can to prevent patients from posting negative comments on doctor ratings websites like Rate MDs.

I have discussed how some doctors in the United States require patients to sign a contract agreeing not to post negative comments about the doctor online before the doctor will agree to treat the patient: Doctors Forcing Patients to Sign Gag Orders.

One doctor sued her own patient for posting a negative review of the care provided by the doctor:Doctor Sues to Silence Patient .

Public Relations Problem

I think we can all agree that suing your own patient is a bit of a public relations problem for doctors who want to be seen as sympathetic and caring.

Becoming More Creative

It appears that some physicians are becoming a little more subtle in their efforts to manage their online reputations. Yesterday CBC reported that some doctors are requiring patients to sign an agreement that transfers the copyright (ownership) to the doctor for any comments posted by a patient about the doctor. Very clever.

Doctor Controls Patients Comments

Under such an arrangement, patients can are free to post reviews online. If the doctor likes what their patient says about them, presumably they will allow the commnets to remain online. But if a patient posts any negative comments, since the doctor owns the copyright to the comments, the doctor can contact the website and request that the comments be deleted.

Fighting a Losing Battle

I think the genie is out of the bottle on this. The internet simply provides too much opportunity for the free and open exchange of information. Doctors (and lawyers and other professionals) need to face that fact and treat their patients (and clients and customers) accordingly.

What do you think?

There is an old saying that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

But what do you call a patient who diagnoses himself? "Dangerous." At least according to Dr. Ross Upshur, a University of Toronto scientist and Canada Research Chair in primary-care research.

Self Diagnosis Dangerous
More and more patients are turning to Google and the internet to diagnose, and even treat, their injuries and illnesses. Doctors are warning people about the dangers of relying on unproven or inaccurate information that can be found while surfing the web.

I couldn't agree more. Doctors are highly trained, well educated professionals. But even with their years of training, sometimes doctors make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes can have catastrophic, even fatal, consequences.

Why in the world would someone without a medical degree think that they can diagnose themselves by typing a few search terms into Google?

Patient Safety Starts With the Patient

When it comes to patient safety, the first step is making sure you get proper medical advice. That is something you can only get from a doctor (and watching Dr. Oz doesn't count).

Please make sure you get regular medical check ups. If you have concerns about your health, call your doctor, don't turn on your laptop.

The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia just released its decision in Langille v. Dzierzanowski .

Elderly Plaintiff

The plaintiff, Walter Murray Langille, is 91 years old. He filed a medical malpractice claim against the defendants alleging they removed part of his colon because they mistakenly diagnosed him with colon cancer.

Application to Action

This case is of interest because it was started as an Application under Nova Scotia’s new Rules of Court. The defendants brought a Motion to convert the Application to an Action.

Under Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 5, Applications are intended to be:

“...a speedy, flexible alternative to a trial”.

A claim filed by Application must be heard by the court no more than 25 days after the claim is filed.

Court Has Broad Powers

Under Rule 5, judges are given broad powers to manage the progress of an Application the claim including ordering disclosure, permitting or limiting certain types of discovery, ordering cross examination to take place outside of court, limiting the time for cross examination, setting dates for filing of affidavits and briefs, scheduling a hearing and providing any necessary directions to expedite the claim.

Defendants Request Means 4 Year Delay

In the Langille case the defendant doctors brought a Motion to convert the Application to an Action. This would mean that the claim would progress as a standard claim and a trial in the matter would likely not happen for at least 4 years.

The plaintiff filed expert evidence from an actuary indicating there was a 75% chance the plaintiff would die before the case came to trial if the claim was delayed.

Justice Kennedy acknowledged that, given the age of the plaintiff, the time involved in getting the claim to trial was:

“...a real and legitimate factor in this proceeding”.

Claim Too Complicated to be Fast Tracked

The doctors argued that the medical malpractice claim was “too complex” to proceed other then by Action.

Doctors Say They Want a Jury

Chief Justice Kennedy noted at paragraph 8 of his decision:

“The doctors have indicated that credibility will be an issue and that expert evidence will be involved. Subsequently, they wish to have a trial by jury.”

Nova Scotia’s Rules of Court do not allow claims that are brought by Application to be heard by a jury.

Chief Justice Kennedy decided to grant the defendnats motion to convert the Application to an Action, despite the delays that would cause in getting the case to trial. His Lordship concluded, at paragraph 32:

“It would be unreasonable to deprive the doctors of their right to a jury trial, a prima facie right commonly protected in this jurisdiction and a process well suited to determining the resolution of the issues of fact that can be anticipated at this trial.”

Pain & Suffering Claims Die With the Victim

Under Nova Scotia’s Survival of Actions Act, non-pecuniary claims (in other words, claims for compensation for “pain and suffering”) die with the victim. In other words, if the plaintiff, Mr. Langille, passes away before his trial, his medical malpractice claim is not likely to proceed since the majority of his claim would be for compensation for his past pain and suffering.

Irony

It is ironic that one of the significant reasons that the court gave for converting the claim to an Action, and the delays that will create, was the fact that the defendants claimed they want a jury trial.

As any medical malpractice lawyer can tell you, it is extremely unusual for defendants in a medical malpractice claim to want a jury trial. In fact, it is common for doctors and hospitals to claim that medical malpractice cases are too complicated for a jury.

See for example the following Nova Scotia cases where defendant doctors tried to strike out a Jury Notice filed by the plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim:

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Denies Injured Patient’s Right to Jury Trial

Anderson v. Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre

Crocker v. MacDonald

McLellan v. Shea & Malik

Vaninetti v. Victoria General Hospital

You get the idea.

Will Doctors Continue to Insist on a Jury Trial?

If the plaintiff, Mr. Langille, manages to beat the odds and survive until his trial, it will be interesting to see if the doctors insist on their right to a jury when it is actually time to go to court.

There's an interesting article in today's issue of the Wall Street Journal about how medical malpractice lawsuits help provide better medical care.

According to the article:

“Medical professionals are finding lessons in these and other past malpractice cases. By analyzing the breakdowns in care that led to missed, delayed or incorrect diagnoses, insurers and health-care providers are developing programs to avert mistakes. . . . Diagnostic errors are the leading cause of malpractice suits, accounting for as many as 40% of cases and costing insurers an average of $300,000 per case to settle, studies of resolved claims show. Peter Pronovost, a patient-safety researcher at Johns Hopkins University, estimates that diagnostic errors kill 40,000 to 80,000 hospitalized patients annually, based on autopsy studies over the past four decades.”

The article quotes American statistics, but the issues are the same here in Canada. Medical errors kill up to 24,000 Canadians every year.

In fact, the Canadian Medical Protective Association issues a newsletter notifying doctors about medical negligence lawsuits across the country. The idea is that by educating doctors about mistakes made in cases that lead to a lawsuit, physicians can avoid making similar mistakes in other cases.

Litigation brings problems that might otherwise be hidden to light. Education and awareness helps prevent the problems from happening again.

I am currently investigating a medical malpractice claim where my client suffered catastrophic injuries after developing pre-eclampsia so this story caught my eye.

CTV News has reported that an international team of doctors claim to have discovered 14 telltale metabolites that appear in the blood in early pregnancy that signal an increased risk for pre-eclampsia.

The researchers hope the discovery could one day mean a simple, cheap blood test for the life-threatening condition.

Today the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision refusing to grant leave (permission) to hear the appeal of a case from Alberta dealing with the issue of standard of care in medical malpractice compensation claims.

The Court of Appeal decision in Nattrass v. Webber reminds us that the practice of medicine is constantly evolving and this may affect the issue of the standard of care.

Four Things You Need to Prove

As I have explained in earlier posts, there are four things that a medical malpractice victim needs to prove in order to succeed with their claim:

Standard of Care: The claimant must prove what the standard of care is with respect to the medical procedure involved in the claim. In other words, what is the standard expected of a reasonably competent doctor (or nurse or other health professional) when conducting the medical procedure that may have caused the claimant’s injury?

Breach of the Standard of Care: The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care. In other words, that the doctor did something that a reasonably competent doctor would not have done, or the doctor failed to do something that a reasonably competent doctor would have done.

Causation: The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant’s breach is what actually caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Even if the doctor was negligent, if the doctor’s negligence was not the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant will not be found liable (responsible) for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Damages: Finally, the plaintiff must prove what damages or losses they have suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence. This would include non-pecuniary damages (what is commonly referred to as "pain and suffering") as well as the economic losses for things like ongoing medical care or loss of income.

The Facts

In the Nattrass case Mr. Nattrass fell and broke his ankle. He had surgery to repair the fracture. The surgery was performed by the defendant physicians, Dr. Webber and Dr. Harley.

Mr. Nattrass was given a blood thinner, Heparin, to prevent unnecessary clotting after his surgery. Dr. Webber and Dr. Harley did not issue any orders to increase the blood tests that Mr. Nattrass was receiving to ensure that he did not have any unusual reactions to the medication.

Unfortunately, Mr. Nattrass developed deep vein thrombosis which is an unusual (although known) adverse reaction to the medication he was receiving. As a result, he ended up having to have both of his legs amputated.

At trial, the judge found that if the doctors had ordered more frequent testing of Mr. Nattrass’ platelet levels, the adverse reaction would have been discovered in time to save Mr. Nattrass’ legs. The trial judge found the defendants negligent.

However, the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the decision finding that, on the basis of the evidence led at trial, the standard of care at the time that Mr. Nattrass had his surgery, he did not require more frequent blood tests.

Not Perfect Care-Just Competent Care

In other words, although the defendant doctors could have done more to prevent Mr. Nattrass’ injury, they met the standard that was required of them at the time Mr. Nattrass suffered his injury.

The Supreme Court of Canada denied Mr. Nattrass’ leave to appeal, confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal.

No Rear View Mirror in Medical Malpractice Claims

As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. In other words, it is very easy to look back after a patient has been injured or died to figure out what could have been done differently to prevent the patient’s injury or death. However, the courts do not look at medical malpractice claims in the rear view mirror.

Judges and juries are required to look at the evidence to determine what the standard expected of the doctor was at the time the patient was injured. Standards of medical practice change over time and patients must be careful that they lead the appropriate evidence and have supporting opinions that establish the standard of care during the appropriate time frame.

Further reading:

Medical Malpractice Claims: Is Expert Evidence Always Necessary?

Doctor’s “Error in Judgment” is not Negligence

The Top 5 Defences to Medical Malpractice Claims

I read blog post today by my colleague Catherine Bertram, a medical malpractice lawyer in Washington D.C. that I thought was interesting.

Dr. Sues Her Patient

She has posted about a California physician, Dr. Kimberley Henry, who has sued one of her own patients who posted a negative review about Dr. Henry online. I wonder if Dr. Henry is opposed to online rating websites generally or just the ones that say bad things about her? Keep in mind that Dr. Henry has signed up for some of these webites and posted her profile.

Gag Orders

Last year I posted about a similar issue Doctors Forcing Patients to Sign Gag Orders .

Catherine's post indicates that some doctors are becoming more aggressive about trying to prevent patients from exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Coming to Canada?

I'm not aware of any similar suits here in Canada, but the online doctor rating sites like Rate MD are a great resource for Canadians. Is it only a matter of time before we start to see doctors suing their own patients?

What do you think? Let me know by posting a comment.

Medical Experts Required

Expert evidence is always required in medical malpractice claims to establish the standard of care and whether there was a breach of the standard of care, or at least that has assumed to be the case by medical malpractice lawyers.

In fact, I recently posted about a claim here in Nova Scotia that was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to present appropriate expert evidence.

Medical Malpractice Claim Struck Out for Lack of Expert Evidence

Sometimes Experts Not Necessary?

However, a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal indicates that an expert medical opinion may not be necessary to establish a breach of the standard of care in a medical malpractice claim.

Vandergiessen v. Trillium Health Centre (Mississauga), was released by the Ontario Court of Appeal last week.

In that case, the Court of Appeal stated:

“In our respectful view, the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment on this record. Not all claims against medical doctors require expert opinion evidence that the applicable standard of care was not met: See Ter Nuezen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674 at paras. 40-49.

While the appellant may be unable to establish elements of her claim without an expert opinion, the claims advanced by the appellant against the respondents involve more than a typical allegation of medical malpractice. The appellant claims that statutory procedures and statutory conditions for her involuntary committal were not followed or satisfied. In our view, these allegations fall into the category of claims that may be established without an expert opinion. They are not matters that rest solely upon the opinion of experts as to whether the requisite standard of care was met.”

If a plaintiff’s claim is based on an allegation that a doctor failed to meet the “standard practice” of other doctors and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result, I believe plaintiffs will still require an expert medical opinion to assess the standard of care.

However, in cases where there are certain statutory requirements or laws that a doctor has to meet, those requirements may be able to be proven without the enormous cost and expense of retaining an expert to provide a medical-legal opinion.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Claims: Is Expert Evidence Always Necessary?" »

Nurse Negligent

In a decision released last week, Justice Tausendfreund has ruled that a nurse at St. Joseph's Children’s Hospital was negligent and that the nurse’s negligence caused catastrophic brain injuries to a baby, Danny Vuong.

Danny’s mother, Ms. Giang was admitted to St. Joseph’s Hospital on June 12, 2991. Her pregnancy had been normal and uneventful.

Fetal Heart Monitor Results Not Normal

Two nurses were assigned to Ms. Giang to monitor the baby’s fetal heart rate. They used an electronic fetal heart monitor (EFM) to monitor the baby’s heart rate.

When the nurse checked the heart monitor it showed a range of 170 beats per minute, a reading that is outside the normal range. The nurse assumed that she had simply heard a normal acceleration of the baby’s heart rate. However, the nurse also recognized that the increased heart rate could also be a sign of tachycardia, an abnormal elevation in the heart rate which is a sign of fetal distress.

Didn't Check Again

But she didn't check the baby's heart rate again to see if it had returned to normal! 20 Minute Delay

Unfortunately, the nurse did not return to Ms. Giang to conduct another fetal heart rate monitor until 20 minutes later. By that time, the baby’s heart rate had dropped precipitously and an emergency C-section was performed.

The surgeon who performed the c-section found that the umbilical cord had been wrapped around Danny’s neck. Danny was born suffering from the results of acute hypoxia-ischemia resulting in severe brain damage.

Justice Tausendfreund ruled that:

“Had Danny been born 10 minutes earlier he would have been at great risk for some neurological injury, but he would not have sustained the depth or extent of injury he did.

“I find that had Danny been born 10 minutes earlier, it would have significantly and materially reduced both the extent and nature of the injury to Danny’s brain and would have significantly and materially reduced the degree of functional impairment.”

Nurse Failed to Meet Standard of Care

Justice Tausendfreund ruled that the nurse had failed to meet the standard of care expected of her. Had she acted in accordance with the standard of care and continued to monitor the baby’s heart rate to confirm her assumptions she would have realized that the baby was suffering a medical emergency. As a result, the Judge ruled that the nurse’s negligence was the cause of baby Danny’s catastrophic brain injuries.

Causation in Medical Malpractice Claims

This case shows how a difference of just minutes can mean the difference between life and death. The difference between having a healthy baby and a baby who will live his life severely debilitated by brain injury.

The vast majority of medical malpractice claims fail because the victim is not able to prove that the the health provider's negligence caused or materially contributed to their injury.

Continue reading "Nurse's Negligence Caused Child’s Brain Injury" »

Apologizing Reduces Mistakes

A study performed at Montreal’s Jewish General Hospital has found that apologizing for mistakes may actually help reduce the incidents of mistakes.

Full Disclosure

Three years ago the hospital implemented a “full disclosure policy” regarding mistakes make during patient care. The policy of admitting mistakes resulted in a 50% drop in “adverse incidents” (otherwise known as medical errors) over the past 3 years.

Provincial health care officials in Quebec are looking to use the hospital’s policy as a model to create a province wide registry of adverse incidents.

Admitting Mistakes Reduces Lawsuits

I have already talked about how admitting medical mistakes leads to a reduction in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits.

Admitting Mistakes Reduces Mistakes?

However, this study suggests the admitting medical errors may actually serve to reduce the number of errors themselves!

I’m not sure what that might account for the reduction. Perhaps when doctors, nurses and healthcare staff don’t feel compelled to maintain the “code of silence” they are more likely to report dangerous medical situations so that the situations can be corrected which, in turn, prevents further problems.

Bernie Weinstein, a patient advocate at Jewish General Hospital summarized the issue:

…to be told “don’t worry; its ok” is not the answer…what you really want to hear is, “we know what went wrong, and we are doing something. And we apologize. It won’t happen again because we are going to do something to ensure it doesn’t”

So what do you think? If you or a family member suffered a medical error and the doctor or hospital apologized immediately would you be less likely to sue? Do you think apologizing for medical mistakes can actually help reduce mistakes?

Continue reading "Apologizing for Mistakes Reduces Mistakes!" »

Nurses Duty to Ensure Appropriate Care

A recent decision from Ontario has found that nurses have a duty to ensure patients receive appropriate care from a responsible physician when faced with a medical emergency.

The court found that the duty to ensure that the patient is seen by a appropriate physician exists even when the patient has already been seen by a resident physician.

Failed to Meet Standard of Care

In Milne v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Justice Morissette found that an experienced obstetrical nurse and an obstetrical resident both failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable nurse and physician during the birth of Anne Louise Milne’s son Jessy.

Jessy suffered catastrophic brain damage due to a premature separation of Ms. Milne's placenta from her uterus, resulting in internal bleeding. Ms. Milne was admitted to the delivery unit of the St. Joseph’s Health Centre at 1:20 PM on August 18, 1997.

Nurse Suspected Medical Emergency

The obstetric nurse who took her vital signs and applied the fetal heart rate monitor strongly suspected that Ms. Milne had suffered a placental abruption. The nurse testified at trial that she understand that a placental abruption was a medical emergency and might require a cesarean section in order to prevent brain damage due to the lack of oxygen to the fetus.

At 2:00 PM Ms. Milne was assessed by an obstetric resident who performed an ultrasound which showed that the fetus was not breathing or moving.

Doctor Suspected Medical Emergency

The resident physician also suspected a placental abruption but neither one of them discussed their concerns with the other nor did they consider an appropriate course of action.

No One Talked to Doctor in Charge

The nurse testified that she expected the resident physician to contact the attending obstetrician in charge of Ms. Milne to determine her appropriate treatment.

Approximately 35 minutes after the resident examined Ms. Milne the obstetric nurse finally asked another physician to assess Ms. Milne. The physician immediately diagnosed Ms. Milne’s condition and ordered a emergency cesarean section.

Justice Morissette found that delivering baby Jessy even 10 minutes earlier would have prevented his severe brain damage.

Lack of Communication Can Have Catastrophic Consequences

In many hospitals nurses and physicians work in what is called a “team environment”. This case emphasizes the need for communication between team members. It also emphasizes the importance of coming up with a proposed plan of treatment with every patient.

Continue reading "Nurses Have a Duty to Ensure Doctors Meet the Standard of Care" »

One of the reasons why medical malpractice claims are so complicated, and so expensive, is because they require the testimony of medical experts, usually several medical experts to testify about both legal issues such as:

1. The standard of care;
2. Whether there was a breach of the standard of care;
3. Whether the breach resulted in the patient’s injuries;
4. What is the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries?

My book, The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada, discusses the use of medical experts in medical malpractice claims and goes into detail to explain why you cannot win a medical malpractice case without solid medical experts on your side.

A recent case in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia simply proves my point.

In Vaughn v. Hayden, Justice McDougall of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

Defendants Apply to Strike Out Claim
The defendants made a motion for Summary Judgment. Basically, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that there was not genuine issue for trial.

Defendant Doctor Had Expert Reports

The defendant provided the court with expert medical opinions from 2 doctors who testified that Dr Hayden, did not breach the standard of care and that any injuries that the plaintiff Mr. Vaughn may have suffered were not caused by negligence on the part of Dr. Hayden.

Plaintiff Didn't Have Any Expert Evidence

The plaintiff filed his own affidavit opposing the motion.

Justice McDougall struck out the plaintiff’s claim and stated:

“Furthermore, it would be a rare medical malpractice case that would have any real chance of success without some kind of supporting expert evidence establishing the breach of the standard of care and the causal connection between the negligent treatment and the resulting harms suffered”

I have been representing victims of medical malpractice for 19 years. It has always been my practice to recommend that a plaintiff get a supporting medical-legal opinion from a recognized expert confirming that there are solid grounds for a medical malpractice claim before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit.

This case just proves my point. You can't win a medical malpractice claim without expert evidence and you better know if the experts support your claim before you file a lawsuit.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Claim Struck Out for Lack of Expert Evidence" »

Highest Cancer rates in Canada

Nova Scotia has the highest cancer rates in the country. According to the Canadian Cancer Society, 40% of Canadian women and 45% of men will develop cancer during their lifetime. I have been asked to review dozens of cases where clients have suffered various forms of cancer which they believe went undiagnosed by their doctor.

What Questions Should You Ask?

So what kind of questions do you need to ask to know whether you have a medical malpractice claim for failure to diagnose your cancer?

When I review a client’s claim involving someone who was injured (or died) from cancer I need to know the answers to the following questions:

Does anyone in your family have a history of cancer?

In order to properly diagnose a patient, doctors must take a patient’s history. That includes details of any significant illnesses that may run in the patient’s family. A patient whose family members have been diagnosed with or died from cancer are at higher risk of developing cancer themselves.

Therefore, if you doctor knows that you have other family members who died from cancer (or failed to ask you about this issue) your doctor may have been negligent in failing to take a proper medical history.

Were you under the care of a doctor when you think your cancer should have been diagnosed?
Unless you were seeing a doctor on a regular basis during the time frame that you were exhibiting symptoms that should have led to the diagnosis of your cancer, it will be next to impossible to establish that your doctor was negligent.

In other words, if you didn't see your doctor, how can your doctor be negligent in failing to diagnose your cancer?

Did you have any symptoms that should have warranted an x-ray?

Did you tell your doctor about any complaints or symptoms you were experiencing that should have led your doctor to request further follow-up tests that could have revealed your cancer?

What type of cancer were you diagnosed with?

This question is extremely important because there are certain types of cancer that are very treatable if they are caught early enough. In other words, if your cancer was diagnosed promptly, you may have been able to receive treatment that could have eliminated the cancer.

On the other hand, there are certain types of cancer that are almost invariably fatal. For example, by the time that a patient exhibits obvious symptoms of pancreatic cancer it is almost always too late to administer effective treatment.

What stage of cancer were you diagnosed with?

The stages of cancer are classified from stage 0 (being the least severe) to stage 4 (the most severe and deadly). If your cancer could have been diagnosed when it was in the earlier stages then it is possible that it could have been treated and eliminated.

How much time went by from the time you should have been diagnosed until the time a proper diagnosis was made?
This is one of the most important questions that we will need to answer in any case involving failure to diagnose cancer.

If a doctor fails to properly diagnose cancer but the negligence results in a delay of days or even weeks before treatment is administered, it is not likely that your medical negligence claim will be successful.

On the other hand, if the failure to diagnose results in a delay in treatment of months or years, it is far more likely that the patient will be able to successfully establish a claim for negligence.

Would the outcome be different?

Have you asked your cancer specialist (oncologist) if your treatment would be different, or your chances of recover better, if the cancer had been detected earlier?

Different types of cancer have different growth patterns and grow at different speeds. If you have a slow growing tumor, and made complaints that suggested the need for further diagnostic tests and x-rays, you may have the basis for a medical malpractice claim for failure to diagnose your cancer.

What is your prognosis?

What do the doctors think about your chances of survival and the treatment opinions that are available to you?

Are you a smoker?

This question is relevant for two reasons. Smokers are at an increased risk of developing lung cancer. That means that doctors should be looking for symptoms that may point to the possibility of lung cancer.

On the other hand, if you continued to smoke after being diagnosed, the defendant may argue that you decreased your chances of recovery.

What Happens Next?

After reviewing all of your medical records, x-rays, CAT scans and other relevant information we will need to have a medical expert review your records.

The medical expert will provide a medical-legal opinion on whether you doctor failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent doctor and whether the breach of the standard of care caused or contributed to your cancer.

Only after all this is done will we know if you have reasonable grounds for a medical malpractice claim.

Continue reading "Failure to Diagnose Cancer: Do I Have a Medical Malpractice Claim?" »

Almost 100,000 Medical Mistakes Each Year in Canada

The Canadian Medical Association has determined that over 87,000 patients in Canada suffer an adverse event (medical error or mistake) each year.

The same study determined that more than 24,000 people die each year due to medical errors.

That is more than 100,000 potential medical malpractice claims in Canada every year!

Role of the CMPA

In Canada, most doctors are defended by a single organization, the Canadian Medical Protection Association (the C.M.P.A.).

Between 2002 and 2006 the C.M.P.A. reported that only 5,246 were filed against doctors in Canada. About 1,000 claims per year.

That means that out of 100,000 potential medical malpractice claims, 99% of potential medical malpractice victims never even filed a claim!

Their appears to be a perception that people are becoming more litigious, filing more lawsuits, and making frivolous claims. These statistics tell the real truth, that most potential victims of medical malpractice never receive compensation for their injuries.

Even if an injured patient or one of their family members decides to bring forward a claim, they face odds that can seem insurmountable. The C.M.P.A. has almost 3 billion dollars in assets that they can use to hire the best experts and lawyers that money can buy to defend malpractice claims.

70% of Claims Dismissed or Abandoned

According to the C.M.P.A.’s annual reports more than 70% of medical malpractice lawsuits are dismissed or abandoned before trial because the victim or their family quit, ran out of money, or died before trial.

Doctors Win 80% of Trials

Of 577 cases that went to trial over the last several years, only 121 resulted in a verdict for the victim. In other words, only 20% of medical malpractice plaintiffs who went to court actually won their trial.

Medical malpractice claims are among the most complicated, expensive and risky types of litigation. If you think you or a family member may have been a victim of medical malpractice you owe it to yourself to get the advice of a experienced medical malpractice lawyer before deciding whether or not to pursue a claim.

Continue reading "99% Of Potential Medical Malpractice Victims Never File a Claim!" »

Why Did You Write The Book?

I get asked that a lot. There's a ton of work that goes into writing a book about medical malpractice claims. Most books about the topic are written by lawyers, for lawyers, and they are pretty dry reading.

I wanted to write a book that the average person could pick up and read and come away better educated and informed about the medical malpractice claims process and what is involved in filing a medical malpractice claim.

What Makes a Good Doctor?

The British Medical Journal once surveyed people in 24 countries around the world and asked them: “What makes a good doctor?”

The answers included qualities like compassion, understanding, honesty, humanity, competence, commitment, empathy, respect, creativity and a sense of justice.

What Makes a Good Lawyer?

I believe that the qualities shared by great doctors are also traits shared by great lawyers. Especially, a sense of justice.

Since graduating from law school I have devoted my career to trying to help people who truly need help, people looking for fairness, people who need justice.

That is why I do medical malpractice litigation and that is why I wrote The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada. To provide information to people who have been seriously injured as a result of medical malpractice. To help people who have been betrayed by the person or persons that they had to trust the most, their doctor, their nurse, their health care provider.

Most Victims Never File a Claim

Every research study that has been done about medical malpractice claims has concluded that most victims of medical malpractice never contact a lawyer or file a claim.

What You Need to Know

You may not actually have the grounds for a medical malpractice claim, but you do need to have certain important information to know if you have a potential claim and what you need to do to protect your rights if you have been a victim of medical malpractice.

I wrote The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada so that people who may have suffered a loss as a result of medical malpractice can have this information.

Continue reading "The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada" »

When someone dies unexpectedly, or suffers a serious but unexpected injury, while they are in a hospital or under the care of a doctor, it is human nature to assume that the hospital or doctor must have made a mistake. Many clients come to me and say: "How could this have happened? The doctor must have screwed up!"

We all want to believe that when something really bad happens to good people, someone will be held responsible. But that is not always the case.

Burden of Proof

The plaintiff (you) has the burden (responsibility) of proving your claim.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Anyone who has watched Law & Order or similar shows on television has heard the term: “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. But that is not the burden that applies in a medical malpractice claim. That is the burden of proof that applies to criminal prosecutions.

Balance of Probabilities

In a medical malpractice compensation claim you have the burden of proof: “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, is it more likely than not that the doctor (or nurse or other health care provider) was negligent and did that negligence cause your injuries?

Scales of Justice?

The easiest way to understand this burden is to consider a pair of scales. All of the evidence for your claim is placed on one side of the scale. All of the evidence against your claim is placed on the other side of the scale. As long as the scales tip to the side for your claim, even a little bit, then you have met the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

What Does OJ Have to Do With The Burden of Proof?

OJ Simpson is a living example of the difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof. As everyone in the world now knows, O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife, Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman because the jury did not believe that the prosecutors had proven the criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt.

However, when the Goldman family sued O.J. Simpson civilly for causing Ron Goldman’s death, the jury decided that the family had proved on the balance of probabilities that O.J. Simpson was responsible for Ron Goldman’s death.

Continue reading "Medical Malpractice Claims: The Burden of Proof and O.J. Simpson" »

Most of my medical malpractice clients have suffered catastrophic injuries that prevent them from being able to return to work or, in the case of infants and children, will prevent them from ever being able to work.

Economic Losses from Medical Malpractice

There are 2 ways to calculate economic losses suffered as a result of medical malpractice. The court will have to determine whether you have suffered an actual income loss or whether you have suffered a diminished earning capacity.

Income Loss from Medical Malpractice

If your are injured as a result of medical malpractice and your injuries prevent you from being able to work for days, weeks, months, or permanently then you can make a claim for the actual income you have lost as a result of the medical malpractice.

Income loss includes both:

Past Income Loss: You are entitled to be compensated for your actual income loss up to the date of settlement or trial. Usually this loss is one that is capable of being calculated fairly accurately. For example, if you were being paid $500.00 a week and you can't work for 4 weeks as a result of your injuries, you are entitled to receive 4 weeks pay ($2,000.00) to compensate you for your past loss of income.

Future Loss of Income: If your injuries are going to prevent you from being able to work in the future, you are also entitled to be compensated for that loss. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a crystal ball. Claims for future loss of income can be difficult to calculate with precision. No one knows, for sure, what the future will hold.

When valuing a claim for future loss on income, the court will have to consider whether your injuries will prevent you from being able to work for two months, two years or forever.

Calculating claims for future income loss usually requires us to retain the services of an actuary or an economist who are experts in calculating past and future income loss claims. These experts take into account factors like cost of living increases or raises that you would be entitled to receive during your career, the normal retirement age for persons of similar employment, the pension benefits you would expect to receive on retirement, and a host of other factors.

Diminished Earning Capacity:

In some cases, the evidence may prove that you, or your family member, will never be able to work. However, we may not be able to calculate exactly what that loss will be. For example, when a 3 ½ year old child suffers a severe brain injury, who is to say whether that child would have grown up to be a plumber, a doctor, or a rock star?

In cases where the exact amount of the future income loss is not certain, the court will consider awarding, compensation for what is called “diminished earning capacity”.

Everyone’s ability to work is an asset. In other words, your physical abilities, education, training and experience are all assets that provide you with the opportunity to earn an income. If any or all of those abilities have been limited or reduced to some extent by your injuries, you may be entitled to an award for diminished earning capacity.

Again this type of claim usually requires us to hire experts to calculate exactly how reduced your ability to work is and to what extent your ability to earn income has been diminished.

Continue reading "Income Loss in Medical Malpractice Claims" »

The latest edition of my book, The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada: Why 98% of Canadian Medical Malpractice Victims Never Get a Penny in Compensation, is now on its way back from the printers.

You can get a copy of the book by contacting me through this blog. However, I am going to be posting excerpts from the book over the next few weeks to give you a taste of the information contained in the book.

Lynn Butler sent me a very kind note after reading a copy of the book. Here is what she had to say:

“I found The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims most helpful. I would definitely recommend the guide to anyone seeking information: it was very informative, factual and easy to read. I would certainly recommend the guide to anyone wondering if they have grounds for a medical malpractice lawsuit.”

Jeff Baggaley contacted me about a pediatric medical malpractice claim. After reading the book he sent me a note to say:

“I have read your book on pursuing a malpractice claim in Canada. Let me say at the outset that your book is an invaluable and excellently written introduction to essential information which the possible claimant needs to know.

As you say, it saved me a lot of time for I am able to read it, and re-read it, as time permits. I very much appreciate the service your book provides.”

If you think you or a family member may have been a victim of medical malpractice you can contact me through this blog for a free copy of my book or you can call me toll free at 1-877-423-2050.

Hospital Infections Widespread Problem

Infections acquired while getting healthcare for an unrelated condition is becoming a common, and dangerous, problem in hospitals across North America.

MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) has been in the news a lot. MRSA is a potential deadly infection caused by bacteria that has become resistant to most antibiotics. For example take a look at this news story.

Recent medical studies show that many healthcare providers do not follow proper sanitary procedures designed to reduce infection when treating patients.

However, because hospitals are full of sick people, they are also full of bacteria and viruses. Therefore, it is very difficult to prove that the virus or bacteria that infected you, or your loved one, was the result of the negligence of your doctor or hospital personnel or simply the result of being exposed to bacteria or virus in the hospital environment.

In order to determine if the infection that you or your loved one acquired was a result of medical malpractice we need to conduct an investigation to answer a number of questions:

What was the medical condition that you were being treated for?

What was the bacteria or virus with which you were you were infected?

Was their an actual mistake which led to the infection?

A careful examination of the facts and medical records as well as a medical opinion from an epidemiologist will help determine if your hospital acquired infection was a result of medical malpractice.

Continue reading "Hospital Acquired Infections: Is it Medical Malpractice? " »