Representing Victims of Medical Malpractice Across Ontario

Articles Tagged

Catastrophic Injury

Catastrophic injury claims involve harm so severe that the injured person’s future life is fundamentally and permanently altered. Common categories include hypoxic and anoxic brain injury, spinal cord injury with paraplegia or quadriplegia, severe traumatic brain injury, amputation, blindness, and significant cognitive impairment. Birth injury cases involving hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and cerebral palsy are among the most common catastrophic injury claims in medical malpractice litigation.

Catastrophic injury cases are the most resource-intensive on both sides of the bar. Damages typically run to several million dollars and require detailed expert evidence on future care costs, loss of income or earning capacity, and the cost of adaptive housing, equipment, and therapies. The injured person, particularly in pediatric cases, may have a long life expectancy requiring decades of future care, and the present-value calculation of that care is one of the most heavily contested issues in the case.

Settlements and judgments in catastrophic injury cases are also subject to structured settlement options, court approval where the plaintiff is a minor or otherwise under disability, and management orders through the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee or a private litigation guardian.

Posts tagged Catastrophic Injury analyze Ontario decisions involving the most serious clinical injuries and the legal frameworks that apply to compensation in those cases.

11 articles View all topics →
Navy title card reading "Brown v Meaney: The limits of clinical judgment, affirmed on appeal" from paulcahill.ca, a Paul Cahill case comment.

Brown v Meaney: Clinical Judgment, Informed Consent, and Commonsense Causation on Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal in Brown v Meaney, upholding findings that two pediatric neurologists breached the standard of care and the duty to obtain informed consent when they abandoned a pyridoxine trial in an infant with a rare epilepsy. The decision affirms that a defensible first impression does not excuse the failure to revisit it, and that causation need not be proven with scientific precision.

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.