Doctor not liable for patient’s life-altering stroke despite negligence: Ontario Superior Court

The Ontario Superior Court has dismissed a recent medical malpractice case involving a stroke patient, despite finding that the doctor was negligent.

The Ontario Superior Court has dismissed a recent medical malpractice case involving a stroke patient, despite finding that the doctor was negligent.

On October 17, 2012, William Johnson suffered a stroke and was hospitalized. His condition eventually improved, and he was discharged on October 23. About a week later, on October 30, Johnson suffered a life-altering stroke.

Johnson sued Dr. Rose-Anne Vieira, a family physician who discharged him after his first stroke. Johnson alleged that Dr. Vieira failed to review a critical imaging report before she discharged him. He asserted that had Dr. Vieira reviewed this imaging report, he would not have been discharged and would have been given anticoagulation instead of antiplatelet therapy to prevent a second stroke.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that the test for causation requires a 'but for analysis'. The plaintiff must show that but for the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. The defendant’s negligence was necessary to bring about the injury, which requires a factual inquiry.

The court ruled that Dr. Vieira had a duty to Johnson to exercise reasonable care in ordering his discharge from the hospital on October 23. She breached the expected standards of care by failing to review the MRA report before discharging Johnson.

The court found that the evidence, taken as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Johnson’s second stroke would likely have been prevented had he been placed on the anticoagulant drug Heparin instead of the antiplatelet drug Aspirin at the time of his initial discharge from the hospital.

The court said, “At best, it may have possibly resulted in a different outcome, either better or perhaps even worse than the actual outcome. While I am cognizant that the plaintiffs need not prove causation with scientific precision, this is not a case where a common-sense inference can be used to bridge the evidentiary gap.”

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove causation. Consequently, the court dismissed the case.