Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Bowel Injury

Bowel injury is a recurring complication at the centre of surgical malpractice litigation, arising during abdominal and pelvic procedures including laparoscopic surgery, gynaecological surgery, and hernia repair. The injury may be caused during the procedure itself, and the more consequential question is often whether it was recognized and addressed promptly.

An unrecognized bowel perforation can lead to peritonitis, sepsis, multiple further operations, and death, which is why the post-operative course features so heavily in these cases. Allegations commonly concern both the intra-operative event and the failure to recognize and act on signs of a developing complication in the days after surgery. The standard of care is established through expert evidence from the relevant surgical specialty, and causation often turns on the consequences of delay in recognizing and treating the injury rather than on the occurrence of the injury alone, since some bowel injuries can occur without negligence.

Posts tagged Bowel Injury analyze Ontario decisions involving intra-operative bowel injury and the recognition and management of its complications.

4 articles View all topics →
Navy title card reading "Clarey v Gillis, A devastating outcome that was not negligence" from paulcahill.ca

Clarey v Gillis: A Near-Fatal Surgical Complication and No Breach of the Standard of Care

Norman Clarey nearly died after a bowel resection led to a failed anastomosis and a permanent stoma. A Prince Edward Island court nonetheless dismissed his negligence, breach of contract, and informed consent claims, finding Dr. Gillis met the standard of care throughout and that causation was not proven. As an out-of-province decision it is persuasive but not binding in Ontario, though it applies largely Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada authority.

Read More »
Have a Case Like This?

Concerned about medical negligence?
Talk to Paul directly.

Free, confidential consultations. Paul reviews every potential case personally and tells you honestly whether it merits investigation.