This is the seventh article in our 8-part series on medical malpractice litigation published in the Verdict law journal. In this article Paul McGivern reviews how the use of experts at trial has evolved over the years, and discusses recent developments in the law.

This is the sixth article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. In this article, we will demonstrate some examples of how the causation principles are applied in medical negligence cases.

This is the fifth article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. Medical negligence is a particularly complicated area of the law, largely due to the need to establish causation. Motor vehicle accidents may have causation issues arising out of an argument about whether a particular injury was pre-existing or the result of the accident, but primary causation is relatively easy to establish: plaintiff was healthy, plaintiff was hit by a car, plaintiff is now injured. Medical negligence is rarely so clear cut. In this article we explore the complexities of causation in the medical malpractice realm.

This is the fourth article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. Even if a plaintiff has obtained some expert evidence critical of the defendant’s care, this will not necessarily lead to a finding of fault. In this article, Andrea Donaldson reviews a number of common defenses to a claim of that the defendant breached the standard of care, namely that the defendant followed an approved practice, that he or she followed one of two accepted schools of thought, or that he or she exercised his or her clinical judgment. The analyses of the courts as to how these defenses apply help to illustrate why so few medical malpractice cases that go to court are decided in favor of the plaintiff.

This is the third article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation.  The law does not expect health care professionals to provide the highest level of care, or to meet a gold standard in providing care.  They are expected to exercise the reasonable degree of care that would be expected of a normal, prudent practitioner.  In this article, Brenda Osmond reviews how the courts determine that standard, and whether or not there is room for common sense in assessing the standard of care.

This is the second article in our 8 part series on medical malpractice litigation. Informed consent cases are highly fact-driven and are to be assessed on the basis of what a reasonable person would want to know, informed by any relevant unique circumstances, potential consequences of those risks, and what a reasonable person would have done had they been properly informed. In this article Susanne Raab reviews case law and discusses how different courts’ decisions have led to the evolution of the law of informed consent.