Report not suggesting that plaintiff’s recovery from surgery was compromised by lack of postsurgical care

Plaintiff commenced malpractice action against defendants following her knee surgery at defendant hospital. Plaintiff retained K who was American orthopedic surgeon and who conceded that he did not have expertise with respect to offering opinion on nursing and physiotherapy matters. K provided medical report which alleged that substandard care at hospital involved, among other things, lack of post-surgical care and failure to coordinate doctors in effective manner. Hospital brought motion for summary judgment dismissing action as against it. Motion granted. Action against hospital was dismissed. There was no genuine issue requiring trial with respect to hospital’s liability in plaintiff’s claims. K did not have credentials or related work experience to opine on procedures and interactions between medical personnel in Ontario hospital. K’s summary of “substandard care” in report related almost exclusively to matters that were in purview of doctors, not hospital administration or hospital staff. No evidence was presented respecting who should have made arrangements for plaintiff’s postsurgical care, and K’s report did not suggest that plaintiff’s recovery from her knee surgery was compromised by lack of postsurgical care. K’s report did not explain what he meant by “coordinate” and “in effective manner” and did not opine on whether plaintiff’s recovery was compromised by lack of “coordination”. Plaintiff herself was unable to articulate how her knee surgery and recovery were compromised by anything she alleged that hospital was responsible for.

Lucuta v. Stevens (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 3752, 2019 ONSC 1691, James W. Sloan J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca.