The plaintiff, Ms. Chamberlain, had a history of chronic back pain and left leg pain dating back many years. Following two unsuccessful discectomies, she was referred to the defendant, Dr. Matanaj, for a spinal decompression and fusion. Dr. Matanaj performed the surgery on February 1, 2021 after which the plaintiff woke up with severe leg pain. A post-operative CT showed two screws were in contact with a nerve root, so Dr. Matanaj advised that he needed to perform a second operation to reposition those screws, to which the plaintiff consented. The second operation took place the following day. Dr. Matanaj only repositioned one screw.
Ms. Chamberlain was transferred back to her community hospital following the second procedure, but again was experiencing severe pain. She was seen by her family doctor who ordered another CT scan which revealed that one of the screws was still in contact with the nerve root. She then underwent a third operation in which Dr. Matanaj removed all the hardware previously installed.
As she was recovering from these operations, Ms. Chamberlain was advised by her family doctor that she was “concerned that the nerve is badly damaged” and that her spine had not been properly fused.⁹ In a journal entry from March 2021, Ms. Chamberlain wrote that “Dr. Matanaj removed the hardware and left me like defunked.”¹⁰ She subsequently made a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and through the investigative process, the College obtained expert neurosurgical reports that were delivered to Ms. Chamberlain in 2023.
The reports expressed the view that Dr. Matanaj failed to meet the requisite standard of care by:
- A) selecting the wrong operative procedure for the first operation;
- B) leaving one of the two malpositioned screws in place in the second operation; and
- C) removing all of the previously installed hardware rather than repositioning the mispositioned screw in the third operation.
With respect to Ms. Chamberlain’s prognosis, the report indicated that she had been left with a major decompression without any instrumental support, and that in all likelihood it would collapse further and potentially shift.
Ms. Chamberlain commenced her action against Dr. Matanaj in September 2023. Dr. Matanaj argued that Ms. Chamberlain had the requisite knowledge to bring the action by March 2021, as evidenced in her journal entry, as she believed that Dr. Matanaj’s treatment did not meet the standard of care and that he had left her spine in a permanently damaged state. Ms. Chamberlain countered that she lacked the requisite knowledge to bring the action until she received the expert reports. She acknowledged she had a belief before she had received the reports that Dr. Matanaj’s treatment had not met the standard of care, but her complaint was initially due to the pain she was experiencing and that the surgeries had left her no further ahead. She submitted that it was only once she received the expert reports that her hopes of recovery were dashed, and the nature of Dr. Matanaj’s negligence and its consequences were revealed.
