The plaintiff appealed on several grounds, including that the trial judge erred in adopting the wrong standard of care and by imposing a lower standard of care on the basis that the defendant was practicing in a rural setting.
The plaintiff tendered evidence at trial from an orthopedic surgeon with subspecialties in foot and ankle, total joint arthroplasty and arthritis. The expert also practiced in the area of trauma orthopedic surgery and he was qualified as an expert in that area at trial. He was of the opinion that the surgery had failed to adequately reduce her calcaneus. Specifically, he opined that the plaintiff’s peroneal tendons had been left in a dislocated position following the surgery, as the inadequate reduction left no room for the tendons to move back to their proper place in the peroneal groove along the side of the calcaneus. The defendant relied on evidence from an orthopedic surgeon with a subspecialty in trauma, including foot and ankle, that he met the expected standard of care.
All experts agreed that the surgery performed by the defendant was a difficult procedure that is usually performed by orthopedic surgeons with a subspecialty in trauma, or foot and ankle. The trial judge preferred the evidence of the defendant’s experts to the plaintiff’s and dismissed the claim.
As stated by the Court of Appeal, determining the appropriate standard of care is question of law, which is reviewable on a standard of correctness.4 The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s extensive experience in orthopedics, including performing open reduction and internal fixation of calcaneal fractures, required him to be properly measured by the standard of a physician who conducts such complex surgeries; that is, an orthopedic surgeon with a subspeciality in trauma, despite the defendant’s formal training being that of a general surgeon.
