Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2003) 359 A.R. 201 (QB)

JudgeWatson, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateApril 10, 2003
Citations(2003), 359 A.R. 201 (QB);2004 ABQB 2

Phillip v. Whitecourt Hospital (2003), 359 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JA.058

Montana Niketa Phillip, a minor by her next friend Yvonne Bertha Phillip, Yvonne Bertha Phillip and Jay Bernard Phillip (plaintiffs) v. The Whitecourt General Hospital, Whitecourt Health Care Centre, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, Harvey A. Bablitz, Pierre Morissette, University of Alberta Hospital, University of Alberta Hospitals Board, Capital Health Authority, Douglas K. Still, Linda M. Casey, and David Schiff (defendants)

(9603 01800; 2004 ABQB 2)

Indexed As: Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Edmonton

Watson, J.

December 24, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff, Montana, was born on January 24, 1995. Her release from hospital was approved the next day by Dr. Schiff. On January 26, Montana's parents noticed that she was not eating or urinating and took her to Whitecourt General Hospital (WGH). Dr. Bablitz and Dr. Morissette, the latter a second-year physician under Dr. Bablitz, saw Montana that evening. Dr. Bablitz decided not to admit Montana and ordered her release. In his report, Dr. Bablitz opined that her situation was "apparently beta hemolytic streptococcal sepsis". On the morning of January 27, 1995, Montana stopped breathing properly and turned blue. She was rushed back to WGH by ambulance, suffering from a hypoglycemia crisis. Later that day she became critically ill and was transferred to the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH) Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. On February 18, 1995, Montana was released from UAH. Over the next few months it became apparent that Montana was developmentally delayed and had vision problems. In 1998, Montana was diagnosed as having congenital endocrine problems (hypo-pituitarism, hypo-thyroidism and optic nerve hypoplasia) and began treatment for these conditions. Montana and her parents sued both hospitals and a number of the doctors involved in Montana's care, including Drs. Schiff, Bablitz and Morissette.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in the decision reported below, dismissed the actions against Dr. Schiff and Dr. Morissette. The court found that Dr. Bablitz was negligent in his treatment of Montana. However, the court held that Montana's developmental delay was not caused by the hypoglycemia crisis, but by the congenital conditions which developed pre-natally and manifested themselves as hypo-pituitarism, hypo-thyroidism and optic nerve hypoplasia. These conditions were not caused by the hypoglycemia, but rendered Montana subject to hypoglycemia. The court opined that the failure to treat these endocrine problems during the first two or three years of her life was a significant cause of the current state of her developmental delay. The court invited submissions from counsel as to whether Dr. Bablitz's liability for damages should extend to the whole of the developmental delay on the basis of de facto causation by the direct influence that his incorrect interpretation of the hypoglycemia crisis and its circumstances had on the subsequent handling of Montana's situation. The court also reserved on the other damages issues pending further submissions by counsel on causation, foreseeability, remoteness, intervening causation, etc.

Editor's Note: The court's decision on the remaining issues is found at 359 A.R. 259. The appendix referred to in the reasons for judgment below is not available.

Damages - Topic 1267

Losses by third parties - Mental shock or distress - Mental distress or anxiety - In 1995, an infant who was a few days old was taken back to the hospital by her parents because she was not eating or wetting - The infant was seen by Dr. Bablitz who decided not to admit her, opining that she was suffering from streptococcal sepsis - The next day the infant suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Subsequently as she grew, it became apparent that she was developmentally delayed and blind - In 1998 it was discovered that the infant suffered from congenital endocrine problems that developed before birth, which could have been treated during her first two or three years of life - The infant and her parents sued Dr. Bablitz, claiming, inter alia, damages for mental distress - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the situation caused the parents mental distress, but reserved on the assessment of damages, pending the determination of further issues - The court, however, stated that any claim related to the stresses caused to the parents' marital situation by the infant's medical problems failed on both foreseeability and remoteness grounds - See paragraphs 272 to 289.

Medicine - Topic 4241

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the test for medical professional negligence could be summarized as a four part sequential test as set out in the text Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada by Picard and Robertson: (1) the medical practitioner must owe the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the medical practitioner must breach the standard of care which has been established on the facts and relevant; (3) the plaintiff must suffer an injury or loss; and (4) the medical practitioner's conduct must have been the actual and legal cause of the plaintiff's injury or loss - See paragraph 223.

Medicine - Topic 4241.2

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Causation - [See second and third Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Medicine - Topic 4241.2

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Causation - In 1995, an infant who was a few days old was taken back to the hospital by her parents because she was not eating or wetting - The infant was seen by Dr. Bablitz who decided not to admit the infant - The next day she suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Dr. Bablitz in his report opined that she was suffering from streptococcal sepsis - Subsequently as she grew, it became apparent that she was developmentally delayed and blind - In 1998 it was discovered that the infant suffered from congenital endocrine problems that developed before birth, which could have been treated during her first two or three years of life - The infant and her parents sued Dr. Bablitz - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Dr. Bablitz was negligent in his treatment of the infant, and that negligence was a significant cause of the hypoglycemia crisis - The court held further that as a direct and virtually exclusive result of the incorrect interpretation of the hypoglycemia crisis and its circumstances, other doctors who treated the infant between 1995 and 1998 were distracted from correctly diagnosing and treating the congenital problems - The failure to treat the congenital problems was found to be a significant cause of the infant's developmental delay - The court invited counsel to make further submissions on whether Dr. Bablitz's liability for damages to the plaintiffs should extend to the whole of the developmental delay on the basis of de facto causation by the direct influence of Dr. Bablitz's actions on the subsequent medical handling of the infant's situation - See paragraphs 211 to 222.

Medicine - Topic 4241.3

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Duty of care (incl. duty to relatives of plaintiff) - An infant, Montana, was released from hospital by Dr. Schiff when she was one day old - The next day the infant's parents took her back to the hospital because she was not eating or wetting - The infant was seen by Dr. Bablitz and Dr. Morissette, but not admitted - The next day she suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Subsequently it was discovered that she was developmentally delayed and blind - The infant and her parents sued Drs. Schiff, Bablitz and Morissette - The doctors conceded that they owed the infant a duty of care, but not the parents - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Drs. Bablitz and Morissette owed a duty of care to Montana's parents where it was reasonably foreseeable that inadequate performance in carrying out their duties would cause a high level of stress and upset for Montana's parents - However, at the stage Dr. Schiff was involved with Montana a serious medical problem for her was not foreseeable - All three doctors were, however, in a proximate enough relationship, involving a duty to properly advise and guide Montana's parents - See paragraphs 226 to 231.

Medicine - Topic 4241.3

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Duty of care (incl. duty to relatives of plaintiff) - [See second Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - An infant who was a few days old was taken back to the hospital by her parents because she was not eating or wetting - The infant was seen by Dr. Bablitz who decided not to admit her - The next day the infant suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Subsequently it was discovered that she was developmentally delayed and blind - The infant and her parents sued Dr. Bablitz - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Dr. Bablitz was negligent in his treatment of the infant and that negligence was a significant cause of the hypoglycemia crisis - The parents had not given informed consent to Dr. Bablitz's refusal to admit the infant as a patient because they were given inadequate information by the doctor - However, the court held that Dr. Bablitz was not negligent in failing to discover that the infant suffered from congenital endocrine problems and had serious vision problems - The capacity to ascertain such highly specialized difficulties was not within the standard of care that could be reasonably imposed upon a general practitioner in a smaller urban setting - See paragraphs 251 to 259 and 267.

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - An infant who was a few days old was taken back to the hospital by her parents because she was not eating or wetting - The infant was seen by Dr. Bablitz and a second-year physician working under him, Dr. Morissette - Dr. Bablitz decided not to admit the infant - The next day she suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Subsequently it was discovered that she was developmentally delayed and blind - The infant and her parents sued Dr. Morissette et al. - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action against Dr. Morissette - The court held that Dr. Morissette's performance did not fall below the applicable standard of care and duty of care owed to the infant or her parents - He did not have the authority or experience to challenge Dr. Bablitz's decisions and the parents were relying on Dr. Bablitz - The infant's subsequent crisis was not caused or materially contributed to by Dr. Morissette - See paragraphs 260 to 266.

Medicine - Topic 4242

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - An infant, Montana, was born a couple of weeks prematurely, following an induced labour - She was released from hospital by Dr. Schiff less than two days from her birth - Two days later she suffered a hypoglycemia crisis, became critically ill and had to be rushed back to hospital for extensive medical treatment - Subsequently it was discovered that she was developmentally delayed and blind - The infant and her parents sued Dr. Schiff et al., alleging that the doctor was negligent in releasing her given the results of her bilirubin testing and poor feeding - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, dismissed the action against Dr. Schiff - The court held that Dr. Schiff's handling of Montana did not fall below the applicable standard of care, nor did he negligently mislead her parents as to her care - Further the chain of causation, if any, was broken when it was subsequently discovered that the hypoglycemia crisis arose from independent factors (congenital problems) and these conditions were in no manner affected by her discharge under the authority of Dr. Schiff - See paragraphs 240 to 250.

Medicine - Topic 4242.1

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Standard of care - Rural practitioners (incl. locality principle, community hospitals, etc.) - [See first Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Medicine - Topic 4250

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to diagnose an illness or condition (incl. improper diagnosis) - [See second Medicine - Topic 4241.2 ].

Medicine - Topic 4255.3

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Discharge of patient (incl. failure to admit patient) - [See all Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Medicine - Topic 4256

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Where doctor works under direction - [See second Medicine - Topic 4242 ].

Cases Noticed:

Foley v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (Alta.) et al. (2002), 330 A.R. 1; 299 W.A.C. 1; 2002 ABCA 297, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 1].

Mallett and Mallett v. Alberta (Administrator of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act) et al. - see Foley v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (Alta.) et al.

R. v. Marquard (D.) (1993), 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 5].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 12 C.R.N.S. 349; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 1970 CarswellAlta 80, refd to. [para. 21, footnote 8].

R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; 31 N.R. 234, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 9].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 10].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 11].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 12].

R. v. Giesbrecht (E.H.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 482; 168 N.R. 191; 95 Man.R.(2d) 309; 70 W.A.C. 309, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 13].

R. v. S.A.B. et al. (2003), 311 N.R. 1; 339 A.R. 1; 312 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 60, refd to. [para. 26, footnote 14].

Fontaine v. Loewen Estate, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 424; 223 N.R. 161; 103 B.C.A.C. 118; 169 W.A.C. 118, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 18].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 19].

M.B. v. British Columbia (2003), 309 N.R. 375; 187 B.C.A.C. 161; 307 W.A.C. 161; 2003 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 217, footnote 20].

K.L.B. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403; 309 N.R. 306; 187 B.C.A.C. 42; 307 W.A.C. 42; 2003 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 217, footnote 21].

E.D.G. v. Hammer et al. (2003), 310 N.R. 1; 187 B.C.A.C. 193; 307 W.A.C. 193; 2003 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 217, footnote 22].

Kehler v. Myles and Foothills Provincial General Hospital (1988), 92 A.R. 345 (C.A.), affing. (1986), 74 A.R. 259 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 224, footnote 25].

St-Jean v. Mercier, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 491; 282 N.R. 310; 2002 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 229, footnote 26].

Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.

Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537; 277 N.R. 113; 160 B.C.A.C. 268; 261 W.A.C. 268; 2001 SCC 79, refd to. [para. 230, footnote 27].

Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 312 N.R. 305; 180 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 231, footnote 28].

Galaske v. O'Donnell et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670; 166 N.R. 5; 43 B.C.A.C. 37; 69 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 232, footnote 30].

Fleury and Hoff v. Woolgar (1996), 179 A.R. 380 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 232, footnote 31].

Vancouver General Hospital v. McDaniel, [1934] 4 D.L.R. 593 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 233, footnote 32].

Ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.

Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 233, footnote 33].

Crits v. Sylvester, [1956] 1 D.L.R.(2d) 502; [1956] O.R. 132 (C.A.), affd. [1956] S.C.R. 991; 5 D.L.R.(2d) 601; 1956 CarswellOnt 84, refd to. [para. 234, footnote 34].

Poole v. Morgan, [1987] 3 W.W.R. 217; 50 Alta. L.R.(2d) 120; 1987 CarswellAlta 31 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 35].

Badger v. Surkan (1970), 16 D.L.R.(3d) 146 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1972), 32 D.L.R.(3d) 216 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 235, footnote 36].

Vancouver General Hospital v. Fraser Estate, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 36; [1952] 3 D.L.R. 785, refd to. [para. 236, footnote 37].

Lepp v. Hopp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145; 22 A.R. 361, refd to. [para. 257, footnote 38].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 257, footnote 39].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 272, footnote 41].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 272, footnote 42].

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 272, footnote 43].

McArdle Estate v. Cox et al. (2003), 327 A.R. 129; 296 W.A.C. 129; 2003 ABCA 106, refd to. [para. 273, footnote 44].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 273, footnote 45].

Laferrière v. Lawson, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 541; 123 N.R. 325; 38 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 274, footnote 46].

Cranwill v. James et al. (1994), 164 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), affd. (1997), 193 A.R. 204; 135 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 223 N.R. 227; 212 A.R. 235; 168 W.A.C. 235 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 274, footnote 47].

Prefontaine v. Martin, [2003] A.R. Uned. 377; 2003 CarswellAlta 903; 2003 ABQB 541, refd to. [para. 275, footnote 49].

Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591; 224 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 276, footnote 51].

Anderson et al. v. Wilson et al. (1999), 122 O.A.C. 69 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 258 N.R. 194; 185 D.L.R.(4th) vii (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 276, footnote 52].

Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002), 161 O.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 276, footnote 53].

Edmonds v. Armstrong Funeral Home Ltd., [1930] 3 W.W.R. 649; [1931] 1 D.L.R. 676; 25 Alta. L.R. 173; 1930 CarswellAlta 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 277, footnote 54].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 277, footnote 55].

Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 277, footnote 56].

Indian Residential Schools, Re, 2000 ABQB 45, revd. (2001), 286 A.R. 307; 253 W.A.C. 307; 2001 ABCA 216, refd to. [para. 279, footnote 58].

Martin et al. v. Mineral Springs Hospital et al. (2001), 283 A.R. 178; 2001 ABQB 58, refd to. [para. 280, footnote 59].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 281, footnote 60].

Fox v. Benko (1993), 140 A.R. 62 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 284, footnote 61].

Talibi v. Seabrook et al. (1995), 177 A.R. 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 284, footnote 62].

Epstein v. Salvation Army Scarborough Grace General Hospital et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 233 (C.A.), reving. (1997), 35 O.T.C. 81 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 292, footnote 63].

Krangle v. Brisco et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 205; 281 N.R. 88; 161 B.C.A.C. 283; 263 W.A.C. 283; 2002 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 297, footnote 64].

Toneguzzo-Norvell et al. v. Savein and Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114; 162 N.R. 161; 38 B.C.A.C. 193; 62 W.A.C. 193, refd to. [para. 297, footnote 65].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd Ed. 2002), p. 385 ff. [para. 232, footnote 29].

Linden, Allen M., and Klar, Lewis N., Canadian Tort Law, Cases, Notes and Materials (11th Ed. 1999), p. 163 [para. 232, footnote 29].

Picard, Ellen I., and Robertson, Gerald B., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 173, 174 [para. 223, footnote 24].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 1051 [para. 12, footnote 2].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (2003 Looseleaf Ed.), p. 3-68 ff. [para. 276, footnote 50].

Counsel:

H.W. Veale, Q.C., R.J. Wasylyshyn, Esq., G.B. Romanchuk, Esq. (Ogilvie LLP), for the plaintiffs;

Richard B. Low, Q.C., James J. Heelan, Esq., Simon D. Johnson, Esq., Laurie Goldbach (Bennett Jones LLP, Calgary), for the defendants Harvey A. Bablitz, Pierre Morrisette, Douglas K. Still, Linda M. Casey and David Schiff;

Jay M. Guthrie, Esq., Mark Raven-Jackson, Esq. (Field Atkinson Perraton LLP), for the defendants, the Whitecourt General Hospital, Whitecourt Health Care Centre, Aspen Regional Health Authority #11, University of Alberta Hospital, University of Alberta Hospitals Board, Capital Health Authority (did not participate in the trial).

This case was heard from February 3 to April 10, 2003, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on December 24, 2003.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. 259 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 21, 2004
    ...involved in Montana's care, including Drs. Schiff, Bablitz and Morissette. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 359 A.R. 201, dismissed the actions against Dr. Schiff and Dr. Morissette. The court found that Dr. Bablitz was negligent in his treatment of Montana. How......
  • Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2005) 381 A.R. 234 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 14, 2005
    ...for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems (see 359 A.R. 201 and 359 A.R. 259). Issues arose respecting the discount rate and costs. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly. Dama......
  • Do v. Sheffer, (2010) 495 A.R. 67 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 25, 2010
    ...v. Whitecourt General Hospital - see Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al. Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al. (2003), 359 A.R. 201; 25 Alta. L.R.(4th) 21; 2004 ABQB 2, refd to. [para. 50]. Marchand v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 20......
  • Phillip v. Bablitz, (2010) 495 A.R. 205 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 28, 2009
    ...Montana caused her developmental delay. The first trial of this matter was heard by Watson, J. ( Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital , 359 A.R. 201; 2004 ABQB 2 ; 2004 ABQB 761 ; 2005 ABQB 174 ; 381 A.R. 234 ). On appeal ( M.N.P. (Next Friend of) v. Bablitz , 397 A.R. 333 ; 2006 AB......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2004) 359 A.R. 259 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • October 21, 2004
    ...involved in Montana's care, including Drs. Schiff, Bablitz and Morissette. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 359 A.R. 201, dismissed the actions against Dr. Schiff and Dr. Morissette. The court found that Dr. Bablitz was negligent in his treatment of Montana. How......
  • Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al., (2005) 381 A.R. 234 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • February 14, 2005
    ...for misdiagnosing the infant's hypoglycemia crisis which added to the child's profound developmental delay and vision problems (see 359 A.R. 201 and 359 A.R. 259). Issues arose respecting the discount rate and costs. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues accordingly. Dama......
  • Do v. Sheffer, (2010) 495 A.R. 67 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • March 25, 2010
    ...v. Whitecourt General Hospital - see Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al. Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital et al. (2003), 359 A.R. 201; 25 Alta. L.R.(4th) 21; 2004 ABQB 2, refd to. [para. 50]. Marchand v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham et al. (2000), 138 O.A.C. 20......
  • Phillip v. Bablitz, (2010) 495 A.R. 205 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 28, 2009
    ...Montana caused her developmental delay. The first trial of this matter was heard by Watson, J. ( Phillip v. Whitecourt General Hospital , 359 A.R. 201; 2004 ABQB 2 ; 2004 ABQB 761 ; 2005 ABQB 174 ; 381 A.R. 234 ). On appeal ( M.N.P. (Next Friend of) v. Bablitz , 397 A.R. 333 ; 2006 AB......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT