In Denman v. Radovanovic, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge’s decision to find all three defendant physicians liable for failing to obtain Mr. Denman’s informed consent to an elective and multi-step plan of medical intervention to cure Mr. Denman’s brain arteriovenous malformation (“AVM”). This summary will focus on five key takeaways from the Court of Appeal’s decision, written by Rouleau J.A.
This action arose from a 2014 fatality of a 51-year-old man following a splenic rupture. The plaintiffs were the spouse and sons of a patient who was cleared to return to work in rural Ontario after having been admitted to hospital for abdominal trauma, including a broken rib, from falling at home while doing renovations. The defendants at trial were the general surgeon who saw the patient in hospital and the family physician who saw the patient in follow-up after he was discharged. The patient died of a splenic rupture 14 days after the fall that brought him into the hospital.
The court outlines the legal test that must be met before counsel can obtain disclosure of the communications between counsel and their experts.
The plaintiff/appellant broke his arm when he was five years old and the defendant/respondent was an orthopaedic surgeon whose negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff’s arm resulted in permanent deformity
Pointing fingers to a non-party an unsuccessful strategy in this important medical malpractice and MVA intersectional case
In this case, the plaintiff was diagnosed with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) before birth, and her condition continued to worsen in the weeks prior to her delivery. While she was not suffering notable impairments when she was discharged, two months later she was revealed to have suffered severe brain damage…
