Bertin v. Kristoffersen et al., [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 32 (TD)

• Judge: McLellan, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2000
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 32 (TD)

Bertin v. Kristoffersen, [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 32 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. AP.040

Renvoi temp.: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. AP.040

Carolyn Bertin (plaintiff) v. Dr. Arthur Kristoffersen, Dr. Paul C. Jewers and Region 2 Hospital Corporation, doing business under the name and style The Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation and Saint John Regional Hospital and Joseph's Hospital (defendants)

(S/C/1189/98; S/C/21/99)

Indexed As: Bertin v. Kristoffersen et al.

Répertorié: Bertin v. Kristoffersen et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

McLellan, J.

April 10, 2000.

Summary:

Résumé:

The plaintiff had a mole removed in 1992. The pathology lab failed to send a diagnosis of malignant melanoma to the plaintiff's doctor. The doctor did not follow up with the lab and the plaintiff assumed that the mole was benign. Six years later, the mel­anoma tumour reoccurred at the scar of the first exclusion. It was removed in 1998 and extended into the layers of fat cells near the plaintiff's right knee. To reduce the chances that the melanoma would be terminal, it was necessary to remove the lymph nodes from the plaintiff's right thigh. The plaintiff sued the lab, the doctor who removed the mole and failed to ensure he obtained the pathol­ogy report, and a subsequent doctor who took over her file for negligence. She sought damages compensating her for pain, suffer­ing, expenses and losses arising from the failure to notify her of the 1992 pathology report of malignant melanoma.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiff's claim and calculated damages accordingly.

Damage Awards - Topic 488

Injury and death - General damage awards - Cost of housekeeping services and child care - In 1992 the plaintiff had a mole removed - As a result of the defendant doctor and hospital's negligence, the plain­tiff was not notified that the mole was malignant melanoma - The scar tissue surrounding the mole developed into a melanoma tumour - The tumour extended into the layers of fat cells near the plain­tiff's right knee - To reduce the chances that the melanoma would be terminal, it was necessary to remove the lymph nodes from the plaintiff's right thigh, leaving her with a reduction in mobility and pain in that area - In calculating damages, the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, awarded $15,000 for future care and heavy housework.

Damage Awards - Topic 634

Torts - Injury to the person - Medical or dental malpractice - The plaintiff had a mole removed in 1992 - The pathology lab failed to send a diagnosis of malignant melanoma to the plaintiff's doctor - The doctor did not follow up with the lab and the plaintiff assumed that the mole was benign - Six years later, the melanoma tumour reoccurred at the scar of the first exclusion - It was removed in 1998 and extended into the layers of fat cells near the plaintiff's right knee - To reduce the chances that the melanoma would be ter­minal, it was necessary to remove the lymph nodes from the plaintiff's right thigh - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the path­ology lab and the doctor who removed the mole and failed to ensure he obtained the pathology report, breached the requisite standard of care and were negli­gent - Considering the plaintiff's "slight reduc­tion" in her life expectancy, and the medi­cal and psychological effects she suffered due to the negligence, the court awarded the plaintiff general damages of $75,000 - See paragraphs 1 to 89.

Hospitals - Topic 2050

Liability of hospitals - To patients - Gen­eral - Negligence - Postoperative care - [See Damage Awards - Topic 634 ].

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - [See Damage Awards - Topic 634 ].

Torts - Topic 35

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Medical doc­tors and medical personnel - [See Damage Awards - Topic 634 ].

Torts - Topic 39

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Hospitals - [See Damage Awards - Topic 634 ].

Délits civils - Cote 35

Négligence - Norme de conduite - Per­sonnes et relations particulières - Méde­cins et personnel médical - [Voir Torts - Topic 35 ].

Délits civils - Cote 39

Négligence - Norme de conduite - Per­sonnes et relations particulières - Hôpit­aux - [Voir Torts - Topic 39 ].

Evaluation des dommages-intérêts - Cote 488

Blessures et décès - Evaluation des dom­mages-intérêts généraux - Coût des ser­vices dom­estiques et frais de garde d'en­fant - [Voir Damage Awards - Topic 488 ].

Evaluation des dommages-intérêts - Cote 634

Délits civils - Préjudice envers la personne - Responsabilité médicale ou dentaire - [Voir Dam­age Awards - Topic 634 ].

Hôpitaux - Cote 2050

Responsabilité des hôpitaux - Envers les patients - Généralités - Négligence - Soins post-chir­urgicaux - [Voir Hospitals - Topic 2050 ].

Médecine - Cote 4242

Responsabilité des médecins - Négligence ou faute - Norme de conduite - [Voir Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nicolls v. B.C. Cancer Agency (1999), 15 B.C.T.C. 44 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Belyea v. Hammond (1999), 217 N.B.R.(2d) 117; 555 A.P.R. 117 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 88].

Lewis v. MacWilliam (1999), 208 N.B.R.(2d) 359; 531 A.P.R. 359 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 88].

Counsel:

Barry R. Morrison, Q.C., and J. George Byrne, for the plaintiff;

Rodney J. Gillis, Q.C., and James M. Barry, for Dr. Kristoffersen;

W. Hugh Murphy, for Dr. Jewers;

John P. Barry, Q.C., and Shane Dugas, for the Hospital.

This case was heard on February 14-17, 21-24, March 17 and 21, 2000, before McLellan, J., of the New Bruns­wick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Div­ision, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following decision on April 10, 2000.