Cauda Equina Syndrome in Ontario: A Missed Diagnosis Profile
Cauda equina syndrome is a surgical emergency. The legal claims that follow are almost always about whether the diagnosis and treatment were timely enough.
December 4, 2023
Articles Tagged
Standard of Care
Standard of care is the legal benchmark for the conduct expected of physicians, nurses, and other regulated health professionals in Ontario. It is the first of the three elements a plaintiff must prove in a medical malpractice claim, and it is almost always proven or defended through the evidence of qualified medical experts.
Posts tagged Standard of Care analyze how Ontario courts have applied the test in specific cases, how expert evidence is used to define what a reasonable practitioner would have done in the circumstances, and where the standard is contested between specialties. The library covers obstetrical, emergency, surgical, anesthetic, and primary care decisions, along with appellate rulings that shape how trial courts approach the question.
For patients considering a claim, these case comments offer a sense of what Ontario courts have treated as a departure from the standard of care and what they have not.
A Young Mother of Two, a Delayed Breast Cancer Diagnosis, and a Wrongful Death Settlement
A settlement on behalf of the family of a 39-year-old mother of two whose breast cancer was diagnosed too late after a missed opportunity to investigate.
October 1, 2023
Thompson v Handler Trial Decision: Coverage in CP24 and the Brampton Guardian
September 2023 coverage in CP24 and the Brampton Guardian of the Thompson v Handler trial decision finding an ER physician negligent for the death of a 34-year-old mother.
September 11, 2023
Beazley v Johnston: A Lyme Disease Claim Dismissed at Summary Judgment
A self-represented plaintiff’s Lyme disease delayed-diagnosis claim was dismissed at summary judgment after his sole expert witness was disqualified.
September 8, 2023
Martindale v Bahl: An Anal Cancer Claim Where the Standard of Care Was Met
A delayed-diagnosis cancer claim was dismissed at standard of care and causation, with a 40% contributory negligence finding for repeated failures to follow up.
September 5, 2023
Sheoran v Interior Health Authority: A Hospital’s Duty of Care to Its Medical Staff
A psychiatrist was seriously assaulted by a patient. The BC Court of Appeal confirmed that hospitals owe a duty of care to medical staff, and that the standard is contextual.
August 10, 2023
Coville Estate v Sellens: A Pneumonia Death and an ER That Met the Standard of Care
A trial judge dismissed a medical malpractice claim against two ER physicians, finding the standard of care was met and that earlier testing would not have changed the outcome.
July 24, 2023
Surgical Negligence in Ontario: How Claims Are Investigated and Proven
A patient’s guide to surgical malpractice in Ontario. The three phases of care, the evidentiary challenges, and what it takes to prove a viable claim.
June 23, 2023
Denman v Radovanovic: A Failure of Informed Consent and a Catastrophic Brain Injury
Three physicians on a multi-disciplinary team failed to obtain informed consent for an elective AVM procedure. The Court of Appeal upheld an $8.5M judgment.
June 15, 2023
Baines v Abounaja: A Pulseless Leg, a Failed Transfer, and a Preventable Amputation
A community hospital ER physician failed to insist on the urgent transfer of a patient with a pulseless limb. The trial judge found liability for the lost leg.
June 9, 2023
Medication Errors in Ontario: Common Patterns and How Claims Are Proven
A patient’s guide to medication errors in Ontario, including the common error patterns, the high-alert drugs, and what it takes to prove a malpractice claim.
June 8, 2023
Rathan v Scheufler: A Shoulder Dystocia and a Preventable Brachial Plexus Injury
A trial judge found an obstetrician applied excessive traction during a shoulder dystocia, causing a permanent brachial plexus injury. Liability was established.
June 2, 2023
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.