The case involved a general surgeon specializing in orthopedics in southern Manitoba
The Manitoba Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in a medical malpractice case, finding critical errors in the trial judge's application of the standard of care.
In Dumesnil v Dr Jacob, 2024 MBCA 4, the Manitoba Court of Appeal examined a medical malpractice case involving Danielle Dumesnil and Dr. Vattakattucherry Jacob. Dumesnil appealed a judgment that dismissed her claim against Dr. Jacob for damages resulting from alleged negligent treatment.
Dr. Jacob, a general surgeon specializing in orthopedics at Boundary Trails Health Centre in southern Manitoba, performed surgery on Dumesnil's left calcaneus in July 2006. Dumesnil asserted that Dr. Jacob's negligence led to delayed recovery, infections, and an increased risk of arthritis.
The trial judge, in his assessment, set the standard of care as that of "a general surgeon in a rural community-based hospital practicing in orthopedics." The judge concluded that Dr. Jacob met this standard and attributed Dumesnil's complaints to the motor vehicle accident rather than the surgical intervention.
However, the Manitoba Court of Appeal identified two crucial errors in the trial judge's approach. Firstly, the judge incorrectly applied a lower standard of care based on the rural setting, deviating from the expected standard for an orthopedic surgeon. Secondly, the judge failed to consider Dr. Jacob's extensive experience, which, in the court's view, warranted a standard close to that of an orthopedic surgeon with a subspecialty in trauma.
The appeal court highlighted that the errors were pivotal in the trial's outcome, impacting the assessment of expert evidence and, ultimately, the dismissal of the claim. The court deemed the judge's conflation of "rural" and "community-based" with a lower standard of care a significant mistake. Additionally, the court stressed the interconnectedness of standard of care and causation, emphasizing that the errors in assessing the former influenced the latter's handling.
The court concluded that the trial judge failed to apply a standard of care close to that of an orthopedic surgeon with a subspeciality in trauma, which was also material to his conclusion that a breach of the standard of care had not been proven. The appeal court concluded that a new trial is necessary to rectify these critical legal flaws.
