• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Pacific Medical Law

A founding member of BILA

Law, Justice And Compassion | Call Today

1-604-685-2361

  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Patient’s Corner
  • In The News
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Patient’s Corner
  • In The News
  • Contact
Call
Contact
Blog

Archives for May 2024

Interprofessional Communication in Medicine – When Misunderstandings Cause Adverse Outcomes for Patients

Thursday, May 30, 2024 By Kate McInnes

This is the ninth article in our series aimed at providing a detailed examination of the challenges and pitfalls in different areas of medical negligence lawsuits, and approaches to overcoming them. Each article will focus on specific injuries and highlight the obstacles a plaintiff faces in bringing their case to a successful conclusion. By comparing cases involving similar injuries, we hope to illustrate how the plaintiff succeeded, and, when they did not, provide strategies that may have been available to improve their chance of success.

This article will focus on cases where miscommunications have caused or contributed to a plaintiff’s injury. The importance of communication in facilitating Canada’s collaborative, team-based model of healthcare delivery, and the role that complete and accurate communication of patient information plays in defining the standard of care for physicians and nurses, will be explained using a recent obstetrical malpractice judgment of the B.C. Supreme Court as a case study.

Introduction

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a collaborative, team-based model of care, in which different medical professionals, possessing diverse experience and expertise, respond to patient needs in a synergetic fashion. These teams may operate according to established templates, in the ordinary course of primary healthcare delivery (for example, the informal, two-person teams comprising of family physicians who prescribe medications and pharmacists who fill them), or they may be complex and ad hoc (for example, labour and delivery teams, which often include professionals specializing in obstetrics, pediatrics, nursing, family medicine, neonatology, and anaesthesiology). Under such a collaborative care model, the delivery of safe and effective healthcare is dependent on each team member competently fulfilling their individual duties. As one Manitoba court put it, “the health care system in place in Canada mandates that these professionals work as a team with each individual having a role in the provision of care to a [patient]. Each person must carry out their role within their appropriate standard of care and each of these professionals is entitled to rely upon (and must rely upon) the others to fulfill their respective individual responsibilities.”1

A duty that is common to all healthcare professionals working collaboratively, which has been affirmed by courts across Canada, is the duty to communicate all relevant patient information in an accurate and complete manner. The failure to do so can have cascading impacts on the performance of the team as a whole, leading to catastrophic outcomes for patients: one review of obstetric malpractice claims conducted by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, for instance, found that 31% of adverse events were attributable to communication problems.2

Although communication errors may not be as obviously disastrous as, say, surgical errors, they can have devastating impacts on patients and their families. In an era where interprofessional communications are increasingly transmitted across new technologies and mediums,3 and in which medical professionals are increasingly reliant on team-based care given staffing shortages during Canada’s ongoing “health human resources crisis,”4 the potential impact of miscommunication among medical professionals involved in a patient’s care must be front-of-mind for plaintiff’s counsel when analyzing and arguing their case.

Pages: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6

Filed Under: The Verdict - Law Journal

Delayed Diagnosis

Tuesday, May 7, 2024 By Andrea Donaldson

This is the ninth article in our series aimed at providing a detailed examination of the challenges and pitfalls in different areas of medical negligence lawsuits, and approaches to overcoming them. Each article will focus on specific injuries and highlight the obstacles a plaintiff faces in bringing their case to a successful conclusion. By comparing cases involving similar injuries, we hope to illustrate how the plaintiff succeeded, and, when they did not, provide strategies that may have been available to improve their chance of success.

This article will focus on cases where injuries were caused by a delayed diagnosis, and will discuss when a delay in diagnosis constitutes negligence. The unique challenges of proving causation in such claims and the role of the conduct of the plaintiff will be examined in relation to when this can lead to a finding of contributory negligence or even a complete dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Duty to Diagnose

One of the many duties of a doctor is the duty to diagnose a patient once they have undertaken the patient’s care. A doctor is not expected to be infallible in diagnosing a patient. They must, however, exercise reasonable care, skill and judgement in coming to a diagnosis. If this is done, they will generally not be held liable even if their diagnosis turns out to be incorrect.1

The defense of “error of judgment” often comes into play in cases of missed or delayed diagnosis, which argues that the defendant cannot be held liable as long as they were reasonably exercising their clinical judgment, even if their judgment turned out to be an error. But if the physician does not avail themselves of the scientific means available for the collection of the best factual data to arrive at the diagnosis, does not accurately obtain the patient’s history, and/or does not refer the patient to the appropriate specialists, courts have found that the result is not an error of judgment but in fact constitutes negligence.2

In Pinch v Morwood 3, the infant plaintiff sustained a catastrophic brain injury after her mother suffered an eclamptic seizure. Two days before suffering the seizure, Ms. Pinch had attended the emergency department with complaints of neck pain that had kept her up all night. Allegations of negligence were brought against the emergency physician who assessed Ms. Pinch for failing to diagnose and treat her pre-eclampsia, a disorder in pregnancy characterized by high blood pressure, proteinuria, and headaches. If left untreated, pre-eclampsia can cause eclamptic seizures. It was uncontested that if pre-eclampsia had been diagnosed, treatment would have been provided that would have prevented Ms. Pinch’s eclamptic seizures and the resultant brain injury to her unborn child.

Pages: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6

Filed Under: The Verdict - Law Journal

Primary Sidebar

  • Birth Injury
  • Brain Injury
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Infant & Child Injuries
  • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary

Categories

  • Accessibility (24)
  • Adult Injuries (25)
  • Cerebral Palsy (62)
  • Cerebral Palsy Association of BC (26)
  • Community Involvement (31)
  • Firm News (55)
  • Health News (67)
  • Legal News (25)
  • Medical Malpractice (34)
  • People with Disabilities (29)
  • The Verdict – Law Journal (33)
  • Understanding Birth Injuries (1)

Archives

  • September 2025 (1)
  • May 2025 (1)
  • March 2025 (1)
  • November 2024 (1)
  • August 2024 (1)
  • May 2024 (2)
  • November 2023 (1)
  • September 2023 (1)
  • June 2023 (1)
  • March 2023 (1)
  • December 2022 (1)
  • September 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (1)
  • July 2021 (2)
  • June 2021 (4)
  • April 2021 (2)
  • March 2021 (2)
  • February 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • September 2020 (4)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (5)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (4)
  • December 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (3)
  • July 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (5)
  • December 2018 (3)
  • November 2018 (3)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (8)
  • July 2018 (8)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (24)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (4)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • August 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • November 2014 (1)
  • May 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (2)
  • November 2013 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (5)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (7)

Recent Posts

  • Digital Scribes, Legal Signatures: AI-Generated Records in Medical Malpractice
  • Caught on Camera: The Impact of Photo and Video Evidence in Surgical Negligence Cases
  • Defining the Standard of Care: When Will a Generalist be Held to a Standard Approaching that of a Specialist?
  • The Impact of Contemporaneous Medical Records on Credibility Disputes

How Can We Help You?

Contact Us

Footer

Our Office Location

Pacific Medical Law 1030 6th Avenue West Vancouver, BC V6H 1A3
Toll Free: 1-888-333-2361 Phone: 604-685-2361 Map & Directions

Copyright © 2023 Pacific Medical Law | Website managed by DataRoots