Medical Malpractice

From Riverview Legal Group
Revision as of 18:42, 28 August 2024 by MKent (talk | contribs) (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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

==

[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 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. 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.

References