Medical Malpractice: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "== [196] Counsel relies on the decision in Cooper v. Valakis, [2012] O.J. No. 361, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. He submits that, at paragraph 91, the Court set out the standard of care in medical malpractice cases. A physician must exercise the degree of skill expected of a normal prudent practitioner of the same experience and skill. If he is a specialist, a higher degree of skill is required. <ref name=" == [10] There is no disput...")
 
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==
[[Category:Medical Malpractice]]


[196]        Counsel relies on the decision in Cooper v. Valakis, [2012] O.J. No. 361, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  He submits that, at paragraph 91, the Court set out the standard of care in medical malpractice cases.  A physician must exercise the degree of skill expected of a normal prudent practitioner of the same experience and skill.  If he is a specialist, a higher degree of skill is required.
{{Citation:
| categories = Medical Malpractice
| shortlink = https://rvt.link/cy
}}


==<i>Dickie v. Minett,</i> 2012 ONSC 4474 (CanLII)<ref name="Dickie"/>==


<ref name="
[196]        Counsel relies on the decision in Cooper v. Valakis, [2012] O.J. No. 361, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  He submits that, at paragraph 91, the Court set out the standard of care in medical malpractice cases.  <b><u>A physician must exercise the degree of skill expected of a normal prudent practitioner of the same experience and skill.  If he is a specialist, a higher degree of skill is required.</b></u>


==


[10]          There is no dispute that the defendants owed Ms. Sanzone a duty of care when providing treatment. The law in Ontario has held, however, that when professional malpractice is alleged, expert opinion evidence is required to allow a trier of fact to properly assess whether a defendant’s action fell below the appropriate standard of care. The expert called to establish negligence must be a professional practising in the same field as the defendant: <i>Kurdina v. Gratzer,</i> 2010 ONCA 288, [2010], O.J. No. 1551, at para. 2. Furthermore, the expert’s opinion must establish all elements of cause in a negligence action: <i>McNeil v. Easterbrook,</i> [2004] O.J. No. 3976 (S.C.), at para. 16.  
<ref name="Dickie"><i>Dickie v. Minett,</i> 2012 ONSC 4474 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fsrfd>, retrieved on 2024-08-28</ref>
 
==<i>Sanzone v Schecter et al,</i> 2015 ONSC 4829 (CanLII)<ref name="Sanzone"/>==
 
[10]          There is no dispute that the defendants owed Ms. Sanzone a duty of care when providing treatment. <b><u>The law in Ontario has held, however, that when professional malpractice is alleged, expert opinion evidence is required to allow a trier of fact to properly assess whether a defendant’s action fell below the appropriate standard of care.</b></u> The expert called to establish negligence must be a professional practising in the same field as the defendant: <i>Kurdina v. Gratzer,</i> 2010 ONCA 288, [2010], O.J. No. 1551, at para. 2.<ref name="Kurdina"/> Furthermore, the expert’s opinion must establish all elements of cause in a negligence action: <i>McNeil v. Easterbrook,</i> [2004] O.J. No. 3976 (S.C.), at para. 16.  
 
<ref name="Sanzone"><i>Sanzone v Schecter et al,</i< 2015 ONSC 4829 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gkh81>, retrieved on 2024-08-28</ref>
<ref name="Kurdina"><i>Kurdina v. Dief,</i> 2010 ONCA 288 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/29bdj>, retrieved on 2024-08-28</ref>


==References==
==References==

Latest revision as of 18:52, 28 August 2024


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 2403
Page Categories: Medical Malpractice
Citation: Medical Malpractice, CLNP 2403, <https://rvt.link/cy>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: MKent
Last Updated: 2024/08/28

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


Dickie v. Minett, 2012 ONSC 4474 (CanLII)[1]

[196] Counsel relies on the decision in Cooper v. Valakis, [2012] O.J. No. 361, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. He submits that, at paragraph 91, the Court set out the standard of care in medical malpractice cases. A physician must exercise the degree of skill expected of a normal prudent practitioner of the same experience and skill. If he is a specialist, a higher degree of skill is required.


[1]

Sanzone v Schecter et al, 2015 ONSC 4829 (CanLII)[2]

[10] There is no dispute that the defendants owed Ms. Sanzone a duty of care when providing treatment. The law in Ontario has held, however, that when professional malpractice is alleged, expert opinion evidence is required to allow a trier of fact to properly assess whether a defendant’s action fell below the appropriate standard of care. The expert called to establish negligence must be a professional practising in the same field as the defendant: Kurdina v. Gratzer, 2010 ONCA 288, [2010], O.J. No. 1551, at para. 2.[3] Furthermore, the expert’s opinion must establish all elements of cause in a negligence action: McNeil v. Easterbrook, [2004] O.J. No. 3976 (S.C.), at para. 16.

[2] [3]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Dickie v. Minett, 2012 ONSC 4474 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fsrfd>, retrieved on 2024-08-28
  2. 2.0 2.1 Sanzone v Schecter et al,</i< 2015 ONSC 4829 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gkh81>, retrieved on 2024-08-28
  3. 3.0 3.1 Kurdina v. Dief, 2010 ONCA 288 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/29bdj>, retrieved on 2024-08-28