Summary
The complainant did not prove that the patient’s cardiac arrest was caused by the neurosurgery or inadequate post-operative care. On the hospital record and the absence of supporting medical evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not establish negligence, and the consumer complaint was rightly dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the hospital and treating doctors were negligent in the patient’s post-operative care, including by not transferring him to an intensive care unit or responding adequately to his symptoms.
- Whether the patient’s cardiac arrest and death, without evidence linking them to the surgery or post-operative care, supported an inference of medical negligence under res ipsa loquitur.
Held
- A medical professional is judged by the standard of an ordinarily competent practitioner exercising ordinary professional skill, not by the highest attainable expertise. A claimant alleging medical negligence must support the allegation with cogent evidence; a complaint’s assertions or an unsuccessful treatment do not by themselves prove negligence. (¶¶ 24, 32)
- Res ipsa loquitur applies only where the circumstances strongly indicate negligent conduct and there is strong incriminating circumstantial or documentary material. The patient’s death or an adverse outcome alone does not establish negligence. (¶¶ 29, 31, 32)
- On this record, the patient had no known cardiac condition, had been examined after transfer to his room, and received treatment for his reported symptoms. The complainant produced no evidence linking the cardiac arrest to the surgery or to inadequate post-operative care. Negligence was therefore not proved, and the Commission’s dismissal of the complaint disclosed no illegality or perversity. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32)
Result
The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.