Busy Doctors Do Not Have a Lower Standard of Care: Ontario Supreme Court
Reasons for judgement were released recently in the case of McLintock v. Alidina.
The plaintiff, Ann McLintock alleged negligence on the part of her family physician, Dr. Alidina, because Alidina hd failed to advise the plaintiff of the results of mammogram testing. McLintock had to undergo a course of 25 radiation treatments and surgical intervention as a result of the alleged delay.
Different Standards for Different Doctors?
The case is interesting because the defendant, Dr. Alidina defended the case, in part, on the basis that the standard of care that she was required to meet as a “busy” family practitioner was lower than the standard of care described by the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Bloom. Dr. Bloom was the former Chief of Family Medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and, at the time of the trial, was Chief of Family Medicine at the University Health Network (Toronto Western Hospital).
Dr. Bloom testified at trial that a significant portion of his time was devoted to management responsibilities. His clinical practice consisted of four half days and one evening per week. He testified that he saw an average of 14 patients per day.
The defendant, Dr. Alidina testified that she saw an average of 35-50 patients per day.
Alidina claimed that the standard of care required of a busy family doctor was lower than the standard of care required of Dr. Bloom who worked in a major teaching hospital and, by his own evidence, had access to “all of the resources in the world”.
Busy Doctor Defence?
Justice Shaughnessy specifically rejected the “busy doctor” defence.
At Paragraph 67 of his decision Justice Shaughnessy stated:
I do not accept the defence’s position that the volume and nature of Dr. Bloom’s practice in contrast to that of Dr. Alidina’s in someway defines the standard of practice in notifying a patient of further mammogram views and an ultrasound.
…
The standard of care applicable to a family physician in 2000 in the Province of Ontario is the same whether the patient attends to Toronto Western Hospital or a Community Clinic in Pickering, Ontario. Dr. Bloom and Dr. Chapman [the defendant’s expert] both agree the standard of care for a family physician is not less for walk-in patients than it is for family patients who have booked appointments… the family physician must provide excellent care which is responsive to the patient’s needs.
Failed to Meet Standard of Care
The court found that Dr. Alidina failed to have an adequate system in place to notify her patients of the need to follow-up treatment and the results of mammograms and other test results. As a result Dr. Alidina was found to have failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable competent family doctor.
Causation
As I have explained in previous posts, in addition to proving that the doctor was negligent (failed to meet the standard of care) a plaintiff in a medical malpractice claim is also required to prove causation: that the doctor’s negligence caused the injury that is the source of the litigation.
Battle of Experts
There was conflicting expert opinion before the court as to whether or not an earlier diagnosis of Ms. McLintock’s cancer would have changed the outcome.
Justice Shaughnessy’s conclusion was as follows:
In the result I find that a balance of probabilities that Dr. Perviz Alidina was negligent in that she fell below the standard of care in falling to notify Ann McLintock of the October 5, 2000 follow up appointment for conned compression mammography views and ultrasound and further in falling to have in place a system of procedure do discuss the abnormal test results with her on the next appointment.
I further conclude that the plaintiff has failed on a balance of probabilities to prove that the plaintiff has any ongoing risk from her radio therapy and that the prognosis has changed as a result of her delayed diagnosis. Therefore the plaintiff has suffered no damages which are compensable at law.
The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
Conclusion
I’ve been contacted by hundreds of persons who believe they have been a victim of medical malpractice. In reviewing the cases we often find evidence that the defendant doctors, hospitals or nurses failed to meet the standard of care. In other words, that there was negligence.
However, as the McLintock case points out, the fact that a doctor was negligent does not mean, by itself, that a plaintiff will be successful in a medical malpractice claim.
If you or a loved one have suffered injuries that you think may be due to medical malpractice you can buy a copy of my book: The Consumer’s Guide to Medical Malpractice Claims in Canada: Why 98% of Canadian Medical Malpractice Victims Never Receive a Penny in Compensation. on Amazon.
Or you can contact me through this blog or by calling toll free in Atlantic Canada 1-877-423-2050 and we will send you a copy, free, anywhere in the Maritimes.
