| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| firm:law:court-procedure:experts [2024/11/08 16:12] – 192.168.134.1 | firm:law:court-procedure:experts [2025/03/11 19:54] (current) – 192.168.134.1 |
|---|
| ''An authority or other document or record that is published on a government website or otherwise by a government printer, in a scholarly journal or by a commercial publisher of research on the subject of the report is presumed to be authentic, absent evidence to the contrary.'' | ''An authority or other document or record that is published on a government website or otherwise by a government printer, in a scholarly journal or by a commercial publisher of research on the subject of the report is presumed to be authentic, absent evidence to the contrary.'' |
| |
| ===== Description of expert's involvement with respect to medical claims ===== | ===== Expert's involvement -- medical claims ===== |
| | |
| | A duty of care is incumbent on all medical professionals toward patients in their care. This duty of care is well-established. It is, generally, to "conduct their practice in accordance with the conduct of a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par33|para. 33]]). A specialist is a person who holds her- or himself out as possessing a special degree of skill and knowledge (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par33|para. 33]]). The duty of care is breached when the professional does not meet standard of care. An expert witness's role in medical negligence cases is to advise the Court with respect to the standard of care for the particular circumstances in which the medical professional and patient found themselves. A professional's conduct must be "judged in the light of the knowledge that ought ot have been reasonably possessed at the time of the alleged act of negligence" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par34|para. 34]]). A professional's knowledge must be assessed in the light of knowledge that she or he actually possessed at the time of the alleged negligence, or knowledge that she or he ought to have possessed at that time (Henry, [[https://canlii.ca/t/k3wq0#par40|para. 40]]). A medical professional is not negligence for acting "in accordance with a recognized and respectable practice of the profession" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par38|para. 38]]). If a practice is "'fraught with obvious risks' such that anyone is capable of finding it negligence", a standard of practice may itself be negligent (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par41|para. 41]]). If the standard of care is breached, the plaintiff's injury must have been caused by this breach of the standard of care. Expert evidence is required to establish breach of the standard of care and causation, and the failure to adduce adequate expert evidence on these points is fatal to a claim of medical negligence ([[https://canlii.ca/t/gfrn2|Larman]]; //Liu v. Wong//, 2016 ONCA 366, [[https://canlii.ca/t/grnsb#par14|para. 14]]). |
| | |
| | ===== Template expert briefs ===== |
| | |
| | * {{ :firm:law:court-procedure:expert_witness_brief_-_legal_proceeding_-.docx |Expert witness brief - legal proceeding}} |
| | * {{ :firm:law:court-procedure:expert_witness_brief_-_ime_-.docx |Expert witness brief - independent report}} |
| |
| A duty of care is incumbent on all medical professionals toward patients in their care. This duty of care is well-established. It is, generally, to "conduct their practice in accordance with the conduct of a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par33|para. 33]]). A specialist is a person who holds her- or himself out as possessing a special degree of skill and knowledge (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par33|para. 33]]). The duty of care is breached when the professional does not meet standard of care. An expert witness's role in medical negligence cases is to advise the Court with respect to the standard of care for the particular circumstances in which the medical professional and patient found themselves. A professional's conduct must be "judged in the light of the knowledge that ought ot have been reasonably possessed at the time of the alleged act of negligence" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par34|para. 34]]). A professional's knowledge must be assessed in the light of knowledge that she or he actually possessed at the time of the alleged negligence, or knowledge that she or he ought to have possessed at that time (Henry, [[https://canlii.ca/t/k3wq0#par40|para. 40]]). A medical professional is not negligence for acting "in accordance with a recognized and respectable practice of the profession" (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par38|para. 38]]). If a practice is "'fraught with obvious risks' such that anyone is capable of finding it negligence", a standard of practice may itself be negligent (Ter Neuzen, [[https://canlii.ca/t/1frhk#par41|para. 41]]). If the standard of care is breached, the plaintiff's injury must have been caused by this breach of the standard of care. Expert evidence is required to establish breach of the standard of care and causation, and the failure to adduce adequate expert evidence on these points is fatal to a claim of medical negligence ([[https://canlii.ca/t/gfrn2|Larman]]). | |
