Medical Malpractice & Personal Injury Blog

Author: Created: 3/12/2012 9:32 AM RssIcon
Medical Malpractice & Personal Injury
By Patterson MedMal on 11/23/2015 11:46 AM
Although hitting a pedestrian while driving a vehicle is frightening and can be traumatic, it is not uncommon. Over the last few years, car-pedestrian accidents have been a recurring topic in local newspapers, especially in the Halifax area. Many assume that the driver is not at fault if the pedestrian was walking outside a crosswalk when hit, this is not always the case.
By Patterson MedMal on 11/9/2015 2:48 PM
Recovery after an injury can be uncomfortable and even painful. However, ignoring the problem may not be enough to make it go away. Delaying medical treatment and/or failing to follow medical advice can have adverse consequences both to your physical recovery and to your potential recovery of damages against a third party.

By Patterson MedMal on 10/15/2015 1:34 PM

With the change of seasons and the weather growing colder, we begin to think about the winter months – and winter activities – ahead.

A recent Ontario Superior Court case, Trimmeliti v Blue Mountain Resorts Limited, 2015 ONSC 2301, involved an intermediate level skier who suffered a broken collarbone when he collided with an orange, mesh reflector ribbon that was used to close a ski run. The plaintiff skier held a season pass, and he skied at the resort for a number of years.  He claimed that snow-making equipment and dim lighting at the closed run obscured his view of the mesh ribbon and caused his accident.

By Patterson MedMal on 9/14/2015 3:22 PM

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. 

By Patterson MedMal on 8/7/2015 9:16 AM

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.”

By Patterson MedMal on 7/20/2015 10:46 AM
A medical malpractice plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions caused their injury; in a negligence action this is known as ‘causation’. At times, causation may be difficult to establish as medical procedures can be complicated and may be challenging to comprehend for those outside the medical profession. The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ediger v Johnston, 2013 SCC 18 provides assistance to medical malpractice plaintiffs with the task of proving causation.   
By Patterson MedMal on 7/9/2015 12:30 PM
A physician is driving in her car behind you on the highway when your vehicle spins out of control and collides with another vehicle. She stops on the roadside and helps you at the scene of the accident. Can the physician be sued for malpractice?
By Patterson MedMal on 6/22/2015 8:21 AM
In medical malpractice, the evidence from specialized medical fields can be voluminous and complex. At what point does the case become too complex for a jury? This was the issue addressed by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in Anderson v Cyr, 2014 NSCA 51.
By Patterson MedMal on 3/10/2015 2:40 PM
Causation is a fundamental component of liability in any negligence action. Even in cases where a defendant has acted negligently, they are only liable for injuries that would not have been suffered “but for” their negligence.
By Patterson MedMal on 3/5/2015 4:25 PM
The plaintiff’s burden for proving causation in medical malpractice cases was recently eased in Quebec. In St-Germain c Benhaim, 2014 QCCA 2207, the Cour d'appel du Québec considered the case of a seemingly healthy middle-aged non-smoker, who received a chest x-ray in November, 2005 as part of his annual physical. The radiologist assessing the scans noticed a lesion on the plaintiff’s lungs and two subsequent x-rays were ordered. The final scan in December, 2006 led to further diagnostic tests leading to a diagnosis of Stage IV lung cancer. The plaintiff sued both doctors but died in June, 2008, alleging that an earlier diagnosis would have led to recovery. If the cancer was Stage I or II at the time of the first scan, his prognosis was very good. However, if the cancer had reached Stage III or IV, his condition was already terminal.