Some malpractice cases involve tragic facts on the patient side and viable medicine on the defence side, and end in a finding that the care met the standard of care. Sutherland et al v Booth, 2024 ONSC 127, is one of those cases. A 27-year-old woman presented to an Ontario ER, was discharged, deteriorated catastrophically over the next day, and died of a cerebellar stroke. The trial judge dismissed the claim against the ER physician, finding that the plaintiff’s expert evidence on the standard of care had “unravelled” under cross-examination and that the causation evidence was unreliable on the medical records.
The case is doctrinally significant for two reasons. It is a vivid illustration of how the expert evidence framework operates in practice — the gap between the two ER experts is large and consequential. And it engages the recurring preference of trial judges for causation opinions grounded in contemporaneous medical records over opinions that rely on later family reconstructions of events.
The substantive case
Philisha Sutherland was a 27-year-old woman who lived with her parents. On October 17, 2013, her parents returned home to find her unwell. They called 911. She was transported to Sault Area Hospital and assessed in the ER by Dr. Karen Booth. After a course of treatment, she was discharged that evening and went directly to bed at home.
The next morning, the parents checked on Philisha. She said she was feeling fine and did not need her parents to stay home. They left for work.
When they returned home in the late afternoon, they found her in a dramatically worse state. The interior of the home was ransacked: furniture overturned, closet doors off their hinges. Philisha had injuries to her body, including cuts, bruises, and a large “goose egg” type bruise on her forehead. The picture suggested catastrophic neurological deterioration occurring while she was alone in the home.
She was transported back to Sault Area Hospital. Imaging confirmed severe brain swelling compressing the brain stem and a cerebellar infarct primarily involving the medial component of the left cerebellum. She was brain dead. Life support was maintained until October 21, 2013, when it was withdrawn and she was pronounced dead.
The clinical context: cerebellar stroke in a young adult
Stroke in a 27-year-old is rare but not unheard of. The incidence of stroke in younger adults has been rising, and the diagnostic challenges in this age group are recognized. Two features of Sutherland make the case clinically representative of the missed-stroke fact pattern in young adults:
The location. Cerebellar strokes present differently from typical hemispheric strokes. The classic anterior circulation stroke produces unilateral weakness, facial droop, and speech changes — features that prompt rapid recognition. Cerebellar strokes more often present with dizziness, nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and headache. These features overlap substantially with other conditions, including vestibular disorders, migraine, intoxication, and even gastrointestinal illness. The differential is broad, and the urgency may not be apparent at triage.
The patient demographics. Most ER physicians are trained to think about stroke in older patients with vascular risk factors. A 27-year-old with no obvious risk factors is statistically unlikely to be having a stroke. The framing the physician brings to the case can affect which differentials are considered and which investigations are ordered.
In Sutherland, the plaintiff’s theory included that Dr. Booth had incorrectly attributed the presentation to marijuana intoxication. The defence position was that the assessment at the time was reasonable on the clinical picture and that the stroke developed later, after discharge.
The five SOC allegations
The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Booth had breached the standard of care in five respects:
- Failing to investigate a significantly elevated white blood cell count of 31,600
- Incorrectly concluding that the presentation was consistent with marijuana intoxication
- Failing to perform a thorough neurological examination, including a gait assessment
- Failing to consider differential diagnoses to explain the clinical presentation
- Failing to order a non-contrast CT scan of the head given the neurological symptoms
The allegations covered the major elements of an ER missed-stroke claim: failure to investigate concerning laboratory findings, anchoring on an incorrect diagnosis, incomplete examination, narrow differential, and failure to image.
The expert evidence: the central feature
The expert evidence on standard of care was the central feature of the trial. The plaintiff’s expert was an emergency physician who had graduated medical school in 1976, had practised primarily as a family physician with a subspecialty in emergency medicine, had worked one or two ER shifts a week at a community hospital, had taken a 12-year hiatus from ER practice between 1995 and 2007, and had returned for part-time work until retirement in 2018.
The defence expert was a full professor of emergency medicine at Queen’s University in Kingston, U.S. board certified in emergency medicine and a fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians since 1998, a practising emergency physician, and a fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology with additional training in medical toxicology. The credentials gap was substantial. So were the consequences of that gap when both experts were tested at trial.
The trial judge made clear findings about the plaintiff’s expert at paragraphs 139 to 140:
I was not impressed by what was left of Dr. Brankston’s opinion after cross-examination was completed. It is fair to state that Dr. Brankston’s report and opinion was unravelled to a great extent during cross-examination and the court was left with no confidence in the conclusions reached by Dr. Brankston or his opinion that Dr. Karen Booth did not meet the standard of care expected by an emergency room physician on October 17, 2013.
If the only evidence the court had was the evidence of Dr. Brankston on the standard of care, the court would conclude that there was no evidence of a breach of the standard of care that the court could rely on in this case and the action would have to be dismissed.
The findings are direct. The plaintiff’s expert evidence on standard of care was substantially destroyed by cross-examination. Without it, the case could not establish breach.
This case is a useful real-world illustration of the framework Paul addresses in his article on expert witness qualification in The Litigator. The qualification stage operates as a threshold; the trial is where the expert’s evidence is actually tested under cross-examination. Both stages matter, and an expert who clears qualification but does not hold up at trial leaves the plaintiff without the evidentiary foundation the case requires.
The scope-of-expertise ruling
The defence ER expert was qualified to give evidence on the ER standard of care but was not permitted to give an opinion on the timing of Philisha’s stroke. The trial judge held that the timing analysis was outside the expertise of an emergency medicine physician and within the expertise of a neurologist. The defence neurologist gave that evidence.
This is the scope-of-expertise principle from White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23: experts may give opinion evidence only within the bounds of their qualifications. A qualified ER expert is not automatically qualified to opine on every aspect of an ER case. Where the question is one that requires specialty expertise (neurological timing, oncological natural history, surgical technique), an expert from a related but distinct specialty cannot fill the gap.
The ruling on Dr. Sivilotti is a useful illustration of the principle operating in favour of a defendant’s case. The defence had retained the right expert (a neurologist) for the timing question. The plaintiff would have faced a substantial gap if their causation expert had not been a qualified neurologist as well.
The causation analysis
The causation issue at trial was the timing of the stroke. The plaintiff’s neurologist opined that Philisha was already suffering the stroke when she was assessed at the Sault Area Hospital on October 17 — that the diagnosis was therefore missed at that time. The defence neurologist opined that the stroke occurred the following day, after discharge, and could not have been diagnosed at the October 17 assessment.
The trial judge preferred the defence opinion. The reasoning at paragraph 164:
If I had to make a choice, I would prefer an opinion based on the medical documentation and how Philisha Sutherland presented at the Sault Area Hospital over an opinion which relied on information from collateral sources, some of which has proved to be inaccurate and all of it is not supported by what the health care professionals observed in their interactions with Philisha Sutherland at the Sault Area Hospital.
The plaintiff’s neurologist had relied substantially on the family’s subjective reporting of Philisha’s condition before and during the ER visit. The defence neurologist had relied only on the medical records. The trial judge gave more weight to the records-based opinion.
This is a recurring theme in malpractice litigation. Contemporaneous medical records are generally more reliable than later family reconstructions, particularly where the family witnessed only part of the relevant period and where their recollections may be coloured by the eventual outcome. Causation opinions that depend heavily on subjective non-record evidence are vulnerable at trial, even where they may be substantively correct.
The hypothetical damages assessment
The trial judge addressed damages in the alternative (in case of appellate reversal on liability). The plaintiff was a 27-year-old woman with no dependants. The trial judge would have awarded:
- $75,000 to each parent
- $40,000 to the adult sibling
- $20,000 to the grandfather (who had died before trial)
The combined hypothetical damages of approximately $210,000 reflect the limited dependency-based loss in cases involving young adults without dependants. Damages in fatal cases involving young adults without dependants are typically modest under Ontario law, in part because the Family Law Act claims for loss of guidance, care, and companionship are calibrated to recognized ranges that have not kept pace with inflation. This is a separate doctrinal issue but worth flagging.
The doctrinal lessons
The case stands for several propositions.
Expert evidence on standard of care must survive cross-examination. Qualification is a threshold; the trial itself is the test. A plaintiff who retains an expert whose opinion does not hold up under cross-examination is in a very difficult position. The trial judge’s direct findings about Dr. Brankston’s testimony — “unravelled,” “no confidence,” “could not be relied on” — are blunt and explicit.
Credentials gaps matter. The gap between the credentials of the two ER experts in this case (1976 part-time community-hospital practice with a hiatus vs full-time academic specialty with current board certification) is the kind of gap that becomes consequential at trial. Where the defence has retained an expert with substantially stronger credentials than the plaintiff’s expert, the comparative impression on the trier of fact matters even before the substance of the opinions is considered.
Scope of expertise applies on both sides. Even the defence expert in Sutherland was limited by his expertise. Qualified ER expert; not permitted to opine on neurological timing. This is White Burgess operating in the routine of trial. Counsel preparing a case need experts that cover all the issues; one expert who covers some issues but not others leaves gaps.
Medical records carry weight against subjective reconstructions. The trial judge’s preference for the defence causation opinion was grounded explicitly in the records-based foundation. Where a plaintiff’s causation theory relies heavily on what family members later recalled rather than on what the contemporaneous records show, the theory is vulnerable. This is true even where the family recollections may be substantively accurate.
Tragic facts do not produce automatic recovery. Philisha Sutherland was a 27-year-old woman. She walked into an ER. She was dead within days. The underlying tragedy is real. The legal analysis depends on whether the evidence can prove the elements. Sutherland is a difficult illustration that even where the human story is compelling, the case must be built on expert evidence that holds up under testing.
The expert evidence cluster
Sutherland v Booth fits squarely within the rewritten expert evidence sub-cluster on this site. The cluster includes:
The cluster now covers the spectrum: from no expert evidence at all (SRL roundup), to expert disqualification at the threshold (Beazley), to expert evidence that survives qualification but does not hold up at trial (Sutherland), to expert evidence that survives trial but is displaced by stronger competing evidence (Hanson-Tasker), to qualified expert evidence that is accepted but is not enough to establish causation (Knight, Tripp).
The stroke misdiagnosis sub-grouping
Sutherland is also part of the stroke misdiagnosis sub-grouping in the library:
The three sources together cover the realistic landscape of stroke missed-diagnosis claims: the patient guide explains the framework; the two case comments illustrate the two recurring failure modes (causation defeat in Johnson; SOC defeat in Sutherland). For prospective clients, this is a coherent reference set on a difficult substantive area.
The ER context
Sutherland also fits within the broader ER content cluster:
The ER content now covers the practice page, the patient guides, and four case-comment outcomes (one win, three defence-side outcomes). This is a realistic distribution that reflects the difficulty of ER discharge cases.
Why this case matters
For plaintiff counsel. The case is a hard-edged reminder that expert evidence has to hold up at trial, not just at qualification. The retention decision matters. A plaintiff’s expert with strong credentials and substantive recent practice in the specific clinical area is the foundation of the case. An expert whose background is community-hospital part-time work with a substantial hiatus, however well-intentioned, may not hold up against a full academic-specialty defence expert. The intake and retention analysis on the medical side is one of the most important strategic decisions in a malpractice case.
For defence counsel. Sutherland is useful precedent on the importance of expert credentials, cross-examination preparation, and the scope-of-expertise principle. The defence in this case marshalled expert evidence that was both substantively strong and procedurally well-positioned (with the appropriate specialty experts on the appropriate issues). The result followed.
For prospective clients. Even tragic facts do not produce automatic recovery. A 27-year-old who walks into an ER and dies within days is the kind of case that intuitively seems like it must be malpractice. The legal analysis depends on whether the evidence can prove standard-of-care breach and causation by qualified expert evidence that can survive trial-level testing. Sutherland is a hard-edged illustration that the evidence does not always support the intuition.
For more on stroke misdiagnosis in Ontario, see Stroke Misdiagnosis in Ontario. For the broader framework of malpractice claims, see Suing for Medical Malpractice in Ontario: What You Need to Know.
Decision Date: January 8, 2024
Jurisdiction: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Citation: Sutherland et al v Booth, 2024 ONSC 127 (CanLII)
Sutherland v Booth: A Tragic Stroke Case Defeated on the Expert Evidence
A 27-year-old woman died from a missed cerebellar stroke after an ER discharge. The malpractice claim was dismissed when the plaintiff's expert evidence unravelled at trial.
Some malpractice cases involve tragic facts on the patient side and viable medicine on the defence side, and end in a finding that the care met the standard of care. Sutherland et al v Booth, 2024 ONSC 127, is one of those cases. A 27-year-old woman presented to an Ontario ER, was discharged, deteriorated catastrophically over the next day, and died of a cerebellar stroke. The trial judge dismissed the claim against the ER physician, finding that the plaintiff’s expert evidence on the standard of care had “unravelled” under cross-examination and that the causation evidence was unreliable on the medical records.
The case is doctrinally significant for two reasons. It is a vivid illustration of how the expert evidence framework operates in practice — the gap between the two ER experts is large and consequential. And it engages the recurring preference of trial judges for causation opinions grounded in contemporaneous medical records over opinions that rely on later family reconstructions of events.
The substantive case
Philisha Sutherland was a 27-year-old woman who lived with her parents. On October 17, 2013, her parents returned home to find her unwell. They called 911. She was transported to Sault Area Hospital and assessed in the ER by Dr. Karen Booth. After a course of treatment, she was discharged that evening and went directly to bed at home.
The next morning, the parents checked on Philisha. She said she was feeling fine and did not need her parents to stay home. They left for work.
When they returned home in the late afternoon, they found her in a dramatically worse state. The interior of the home was ransacked: furniture overturned, closet doors off their hinges. Philisha had injuries to her body, including cuts, bruises, and a large “goose egg” type bruise on her forehead. The picture suggested catastrophic neurological deterioration occurring while she was alone in the home.
She was transported back to Sault Area Hospital. Imaging confirmed severe brain swelling compressing the brain stem and a cerebellar infarct primarily involving the medial component of the left cerebellum. She was brain dead. Life support was maintained until October 21, 2013, when it was withdrawn and she was pronounced dead.
The clinical context: cerebellar stroke in a young adult
Stroke in a 27-year-old is rare but not unheard of. The incidence of stroke in younger adults has been rising, and the diagnostic challenges in this age group are recognized. Two features of Sutherland make the case clinically representative of the missed-stroke fact pattern in young adults:
The location. Cerebellar strokes present differently from typical hemispheric strokes. The classic anterior circulation stroke produces unilateral weakness, facial droop, and speech changes — features that prompt rapid recognition. Cerebellar strokes more often present with dizziness, nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and headache. These features overlap substantially with other conditions, including vestibular disorders, migraine, intoxication, and even gastrointestinal illness. The differential is broad, and the urgency may not be apparent at triage.
The patient demographics. Most ER physicians are trained to think about stroke in older patients with vascular risk factors. A 27-year-old with no obvious risk factors is statistically unlikely to be having a stroke. The framing the physician brings to the case can affect which differentials are considered and which investigations are ordered.
In Sutherland, the plaintiff’s theory included that Dr. Booth had incorrectly attributed the presentation to marijuana intoxication. The defence position was that the assessment at the time was reasonable on the clinical picture and that the stroke developed later, after discharge.
The five SOC allegations
The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Booth had breached the standard of care in five respects:
The allegations covered the major elements of an ER missed-stroke claim: failure to investigate concerning laboratory findings, anchoring on an incorrect diagnosis, incomplete examination, narrow differential, and failure to image.
The expert evidence: the central feature
The expert evidence on standard of care was the central feature of the trial. The plaintiff’s expert was an emergency physician who had graduated medical school in 1976, had practised primarily as a family physician with a subspecialty in emergency medicine, had worked one or two ER shifts a week at a community hospital, had taken a 12-year hiatus from ER practice between 1995 and 2007, and had returned for part-time work until retirement in 2018.
The defence expert was a full professor of emergency medicine at Queen’s University in Kingston, U.S. board certified in emergency medicine and a fellow of the American College of Emergency Physicians since 1998, a practising emergency physician, and a fellow of the American College of Medical Toxicology with additional training in medical toxicology. The credentials gap was substantial. So were the consequences of that gap when both experts were tested at trial.
The trial judge made clear findings about the plaintiff’s expert at paragraphs 139 to 140:
The findings are direct. The plaintiff’s expert evidence on standard of care was substantially destroyed by cross-examination. Without it, the case could not establish breach.
This case is a useful real-world illustration of the framework Paul addresses in his article on expert witness qualification in The Litigator. The qualification stage operates as a threshold; the trial is where the expert’s evidence is actually tested under cross-examination. Both stages matter, and an expert who clears qualification but does not hold up at trial leaves the plaintiff without the evidentiary foundation the case requires.
The scope-of-expertise ruling
The defence ER expert was qualified to give evidence on the ER standard of care but was not permitted to give an opinion on the timing of Philisha’s stroke. The trial judge held that the timing analysis was outside the expertise of an emergency medicine physician and within the expertise of a neurologist. The defence neurologist gave that evidence.
This is the scope-of-expertise principle from White Burgess Langille Inman v Abbott and Haliburton Co, 2015 SCC 23: experts may give opinion evidence only within the bounds of their qualifications. A qualified ER expert is not automatically qualified to opine on every aspect of an ER case. Where the question is one that requires specialty expertise (neurological timing, oncological natural history, surgical technique), an expert from a related but distinct specialty cannot fill the gap.
The ruling on Dr. Sivilotti is a useful illustration of the principle operating in favour of a defendant’s case. The defence had retained the right expert (a neurologist) for the timing question. The plaintiff would have faced a substantial gap if their causation expert had not been a qualified neurologist as well.
The causation analysis
The causation issue at trial was the timing of the stroke. The plaintiff’s neurologist opined that Philisha was already suffering the stroke when she was assessed at the Sault Area Hospital on October 17 — that the diagnosis was therefore missed at that time. The defence neurologist opined that the stroke occurred the following day, after discharge, and could not have been diagnosed at the October 17 assessment.
The trial judge preferred the defence opinion. The reasoning at paragraph 164:
The plaintiff’s neurologist had relied substantially on the family’s subjective reporting of Philisha’s condition before and during the ER visit. The defence neurologist had relied only on the medical records. The trial judge gave more weight to the records-based opinion.
This is a recurring theme in malpractice litigation. Contemporaneous medical records are generally more reliable than later family reconstructions, particularly where the family witnessed only part of the relevant period and where their recollections may be coloured by the eventual outcome. Causation opinions that depend heavily on subjective non-record evidence are vulnerable at trial, even where they may be substantively correct.
The hypothetical damages assessment
The trial judge addressed damages in the alternative (in case of appellate reversal on liability). The plaintiff was a 27-year-old woman with no dependants. The trial judge would have awarded:
The combined hypothetical damages of approximately $210,000 reflect the limited dependency-based loss in cases involving young adults without dependants. Damages in fatal cases involving young adults without dependants are typically modest under Ontario law, in part because the Family Law Act claims for loss of guidance, care, and companionship are calibrated to recognized ranges that have not kept pace with inflation. This is a separate doctrinal issue but worth flagging.
The doctrinal lessons
The case stands for several propositions.
Expert evidence on standard of care must survive cross-examination. Qualification is a threshold; the trial itself is the test. A plaintiff who retains an expert whose opinion does not hold up under cross-examination is in a very difficult position. The trial judge’s direct findings about Dr. Brankston’s testimony — “unravelled,” “no confidence,” “could not be relied on” — are blunt and explicit.
Credentials gaps matter. The gap between the credentials of the two ER experts in this case (1976 part-time community-hospital practice with a hiatus vs full-time academic specialty with current board certification) is the kind of gap that becomes consequential at trial. Where the defence has retained an expert with substantially stronger credentials than the plaintiff’s expert, the comparative impression on the trier of fact matters even before the substance of the opinions is considered.
Scope of expertise applies on both sides. Even the defence expert in Sutherland was limited by his expertise. Qualified ER expert; not permitted to opine on neurological timing. This is White Burgess operating in the routine of trial. Counsel preparing a case need experts that cover all the issues; one expert who covers some issues but not others leaves gaps.
Medical records carry weight against subjective reconstructions. The trial judge’s preference for the defence causation opinion was grounded explicitly in the records-based foundation. Where a plaintiff’s causation theory relies heavily on what family members later recalled rather than on what the contemporaneous records show, the theory is vulnerable. This is true even where the family recollections may be substantively accurate.
Tragic facts do not produce automatic recovery. Philisha Sutherland was a 27-year-old woman. She walked into an ER. She was dead within days. The underlying tragedy is real. The legal analysis depends on whether the evidence can prove the elements. Sutherland is a difficult illustration that even where the human story is compelling, the case must be built on expert evidence that holds up under testing.
The expert evidence cluster
Sutherland v Booth fits squarely within the rewritten expert evidence sub-cluster on this site. The cluster includes:
The cluster now covers the spectrum: from no expert evidence at all (SRL roundup), to expert disqualification at the threshold (Beazley), to expert evidence that survives qualification but does not hold up at trial (Sutherland), to expert evidence that survives trial but is displaced by stronger competing evidence (Hanson-Tasker), to qualified expert evidence that is accepted but is not enough to establish causation (Knight, Tripp).
The stroke misdiagnosis sub-grouping
Sutherland is also part of the stroke misdiagnosis sub-grouping in the library:
The three sources together cover the realistic landscape of stroke missed-diagnosis claims: the patient guide explains the framework; the two case comments illustrate the two recurring failure modes (causation defeat in Johnson; SOC defeat in Sutherland). For prospective clients, this is a coherent reference set on a difficult substantive area.
The ER context
Sutherland also fits within the broader ER content cluster:
The ER content now covers the practice page, the patient guides, and four case-comment outcomes (one win, three defence-side outcomes). This is a realistic distribution that reflects the difficulty of ER discharge cases.
Why this case matters
For plaintiff counsel. The case is a hard-edged reminder that expert evidence has to hold up at trial, not just at qualification. The retention decision matters. A plaintiff’s expert with strong credentials and substantive recent practice in the specific clinical area is the foundation of the case. An expert whose background is community-hospital part-time work with a substantial hiatus, however well-intentioned, may not hold up against a full academic-specialty defence expert. The intake and retention analysis on the medical side is one of the most important strategic decisions in a malpractice case.
For defence counsel. Sutherland is useful precedent on the importance of expert credentials, cross-examination preparation, and the scope-of-expertise principle. The defence in this case marshalled expert evidence that was both substantively strong and procedurally well-positioned (with the appropriate specialty experts on the appropriate issues). The result followed.
For prospective clients. Even tragic facts do not produce automatic recovery. A 27-year-old who walks into an ER and dies within days is the kind of case that intuitively seems like it must be malpractice. The legal analysis depends on whether the evidence can prove standard-of-care breach and causation by qualified expert evidence that can survive trial-level testing. Sutherland is a hard-edged illustration that the evidence does not always support the intuition.
For more on stroke misdiagnosis in Ontario, see Stroke Misdiagnosis in Ontario. For the broader framework of malpractice claims, see Suing for Medical Malpractice in Ontario: What You Need to Know.
Decision Date: January 8, 2024
Jurisdiction: Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Citation: Sutherland et al v Booth, 2024 ONSC 127 (CanLII)
Paul Cahill
Partner, Davidson Cahill Morrison LLP | LSO Certified Specialist in Civil Litigation
Paul represents victims of medical malpractice across Ontario, with trial experience including a $11.5M jury verdict in a birth injury case. He is recognized in Best Lawyers in Canada and serves as trial counsel to other lawyers on complex medical negligence matters.
About PaulMore on medical malpractice in Ontario.
Other articles by Paul exploring the conditions, decisions, and systems behind preventable medical harm.
Graham v Bridgepoint Health: Osteomyelitis, Hospitalist Standard of Care, and Patient Treatment Decisions
Ontario Superior Court dismisses post-operative osteomyelitis claim. The hospitalist standard of care, patient-declined treatment, and the pre-existing infection defence.
Finding the Right Expert in a Medical Malpractice Case
Why expert selection drives outcomes in Ontario medical malpractice cases. Paul Cahill on finding the right expert from an OTLA webinar.
McMullan Estate v Naom Estate: Mild Aortic Root Dilation, ED Chest Pain, and the Limits of Foreseeability
Ontario Superior Court dismisses fatal aortic dissection claim against internist and ED physician. The standards of care for mild aortic dilation and hypertensive chest pain.