An adverse event is an unexpected problem with your hospital care or services caused by the mistakes of healthcare providers or weaknesses in the system. Disclosure of these problems to patients and the public is necessary to understand the issues and prevent them from happening again.
On June 24, 2015, in Ziebenhaus v Bahlieda, 2015 ONCA 471, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously decided a narrow but important issue in personal injury law: whether superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to order a party to undergo a physical or mental assessment by someone who is not a “health practitioner.”
On October 30, 2014, proposed changes to Nova Scotia’s Limitation of Actions Act passed second reading in the Legislative Assembly. When declared in force, the amended Act would change a number of time periods within which an action may be filed for certain civil claims. In particular, the amended Act would create a standard two-year limitation period for most civil claims, such as personal injury claims, and would also create a fifteen-year ultimate limitation period for claims which might not be immediately discovered. The amended Act would provide that there is no limitation period for actions arising out of sexual assault and domestic violence.
The status of Bill No. 64 may be followed here: http://nslegislature.ca/index.php/proceedings/bills/limitation_of_actions_act_-_bill_64
A patient who wishes to bring forth a medical malpractice claim must keep in mind that they carry the burden of proving the doctor caused their injuries. This burden is known as causation. There are two methods courts use to determine causation; the “but-for test” and, the “material contribution” approach. A plaintiff should know which method the court will most likely follow in order to effectively prove their case. The recent decision, Fowlow v. Southlake Regional Health Centre, 2014 ONCA 193, highlights this distinction.