On August 31, 2023, a motions judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice summarily dismissed a medical malpractice claim wherein the Plaintiff, Mr. Beazley, alleged negligence and delayed diagnosis with respect to Lyme disease. The Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the delayed diagnosis, he suffered injuries and losses.

ISSUES

The issue in this motion is whether there is a genuine issue for trial as against the doctors and hospital named in the lawsuit.

FACTS

From December 2015 to May 2018, the Plaintiff saw some of the Defendant physicians on more than one occasion and others only once.

Two of the individual Defendants never actually saw the Plaintiff as their involvement in his care was limited to the interpretation of echocardiograms. Some of the individual Defendants are family medicine specialists; others are specialists in fields such as cardiology, emergency medicine, infectious diseases, internal medicine, neurology, and sports medicine.

Central to the Plaintiff’s allegations of failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease are the results of three sets of bloodwork/tests carried out in 2016:

• The first test was done in May 2016 at the request of the Plaintiff’s then family physician, Dr. James Gill. That test was the two-tier Lyme test available through the Ministry of Health (“MOH”). The results of that test were negative for Lyme disease;
• By the fall of 2016, the Plaintiff was consulting with and being treated by a Toronto-based family medicine (emergency medicine) physician. That physician (Dr. Jacobson) was not a defendant in this action.  After seeing the Plaintiff for an initial consultation, Dr. Jacobson arranged for bloodwork/test in October 2016;
• The third test was carried out at the request of Dr. Jacobson in November 2016 at the IGeneX laboratory in California, USA. The test carried out at IGeneX (“the PCR Lyme test”) was different from the test available in Ontario through the MOH; the PCR Lyme test is not available through the MOH.

Based on the combination of the Plaintiff’s clinical presentation and history, as self-reported in October 2016, and the November 2016 IGeneX test results, Dr. Jacobson opined that Mr. Beazley was likely experiencing symptoms of a tick-borne disease. Dr. Jacobson prescribed a long-term course of antibiotics.

Based on Dr. Jacobson’s opinion, the Plaintiff believes he had Lyme disease that remained undiagnosed from late 2015 until the fall of 2016.

From October 2016 forward, and while under the care of Dr. Jacobson, Mr. Beazley continued to see or began to see the Defendant physicians.

Some of the Defendant physicians were aware, when they interacted with the Plaintiff, of the results of one or more of the three tests carried out in 2016. The Defendant physicians who were aware of the results of the two-tier Lyme disease test conducted through the MOH in May 2016, rely, at least in part, on that result to rule out Lyme disease as a potential cause of the Plaintiff’s symptoms.

The seven expert witnesses upon whose evidence the Defendants collectively rely, expressed opinions which supported the approaches taken by the physicians. The seven expert witnesses supported the reliance on the results of the two-tier test for Lyme disease available from the MOH.

The Plaintiff, on the other hand, was critical of the reliance on the two-tier test as a factor when considering Lyme disease as a potential cause of a his symptoms. Mr. Beazley’s position was that the approach to Lyme disease in Ontario, including reliance on the two-tier test was, in and of itself, negligent.

In resisting the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff relied on the expert opinion of Dr. Ben Boucher (“Dr. Boucher”), an emergency medicine and family medicine physician. 

DECISION

It is noteworthy that the Plaintiff was self-represented, and was relying on a sole expert to prosecute his claim for medical malpractice against a number of different medical specialties.

After reviewing the Plaintiff’s experts’ qualifications, the motions judge determined that Dr. Boucher should not be permitted to provide opinion evidence. By making this determination, there really was no genuine issue for trial, particularly given the weight of the multiple defence opinions.

Decision Date: August 31, 2023

Jurisdiction: Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Citation: Beazley v. Johnston et al., 2023 ONSC 4956 (CanLII)