Santos v. Traff et al., (1999) 251 A.R. 223 (QB)

• Judge: P.L.J. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 30, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 251 A.R. 223 (QB)

Santos v. Traff (1999), 251 A.R. 223 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. AU.064

Maria Alfonso Santos and Mario Jesus Santos (plaintiffs) v. Dr. Terrence Traff and Dr. John Doe (defendants)

(Action No. 8903-10094)

Indexed As: Santos v. Traff et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

P.L.J. Smith, J.

July 30, 1999.

Summary:

The defendant surgeon removed a retro peritoneal cyst from the plaintiff. The plain­tiff alleged that she was injured during the surgery and required 14 further procedures, including four surgeries. The plaintiff sued the surgeon for damages. The plaintiff's husband sued for loss of consortium and special damages for past loss of income.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the surgeon was negligent in performing the operation and liable for damages for loss of past income for 82 weeks. The court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general non­pecuniary damages plus an additional $15,000 for housekeeping. The court de­clined to award loss of future income after the 82 weeks. The court awarded the plain­tiff's husband $6,000 damages for past loss of income and $5,000 for loss of consortium.

Damage Awards - Topic 493

Injury and death - General damage awards - Loss of prospective earnings - [See Dam­age Awards - Topic 634 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 495

Injury and death - General damage awards - Loss of housekeeping capacity - [See Damage Awards - Topic 634 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 577

Torts - Injury to third parties - Loss of income - General - [See Damage Awards - Topic 585 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 585

Torts - Injury to third parties - Loss of consortium - The plaintiff required surgery to remove a retro peritoneal cyst - A sur­geon who had performed two prior sur­geries on the plaintiff removed the cyst - During the surgery, the surgeon perfor­ated the plaintiff's ureter - As a result, the plaintiff required 14 further procedures, suffered great pain, was unable to return to work for 82 weeks and was unable to perform household chores - Her husband and daughter performed the household chores and shopping - The husband quit work to look after his wife, particularly during the difficult period when she wore a colostomy bag - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the husband $5,000 for loss of consortium and $6,000 for loss of income - See paragraphs 161 to 162.

Damage Awards - Topic 634

Torts - Injury to the person - Medical or dental malpractice - The plaintiff required surgery to remove a retro peritoneal cyst - A surgeon who had performed two prior surgeries on the plaintiff removed the cyst - During the surgery, the surgeon perfor­ated the plaintiff's ureter - As a result, the plaintiff required 14 further procedures, suffered great pain, was unable to return to work for 82 weeks and was unable to perform household chores - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded the plaintiff $50,000 general damages plus an additional $15,000 for housekeeping and past loss of income for the 82 weeks she was off work - Having found that the plaintiff's continuing inability to return to work was not causally connected to the injury, the court declined to award dam­ages for future loss of income - See para­graphs 147 to 160.

Medicine - Topic 4245

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Surgical operations by doctors - [See Medicine - Topic 4252.2 ].

Medicine - Topic 4248

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to inform or disclose - The plaintiff required surgery to remove a retro peritoneal cyst - A surgeon who had per­formed two prior surgeries on the plaintiff removed the cyst - During the surgery, the surgeon perforated the plain­tiff's ureter - The plaintiff sued the sur­geon, alleging, inter alia, lack of informed consent - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that surgeon failed to advise of the risk of organ damage - However, the plaintiff would have undergone the surgery even if she had been aware of the risk of perfora­tion of the ureter or bowel - See para­graphs 33 to 57.

Medicine - Topic 4252.2

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Obstetrical or gynaecological care - The plaintiff required surgery to remove a retro peritoneal cyst - A surgeon who had performed two prior surgeries on the plain­tiff removed the cyst - During the surgery, the surgeon perforated the plain­tiff's ureter - The plaintiff required 14 further pro­cedures, including four surgeries, to correct the problems that resulted - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the surgeon was negligent in the manner of performing the operation and that the negligence resulted in the perforation of the ureter - See paragraphs 58 to 146.

Cases Noticed:

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; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 1].

Fontaine v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia - see Fontaine v. Loewen Estate.

Marchuk v. Swede Creek Contracting Ltd. (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 318; 190 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Lepp v. Hopp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192; 32 N.R. 145; 22 A.R. 361, refd to. [para. 1].

Duguay v. LeBaud (1996), 177 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 449 A.P.R. 321 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 1].

Seney v. Crooks et al. (1998), 223 A.R. 145; 183 W.A.C. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Zimmer and Zimmer v. Ringrose (1981), 28 A.R. 69; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Kangas v. Parker and Asquith, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 25 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Poole v. Morgan, [1987] A.J. No. 1414 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Crits and Crits v. Sylvester, [1956] O.R. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Scott v. Hutchinson, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3286 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Fizer v. Keys, [1974] 2 W.W.R. 14 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 1].

Gonda v. Kerbel (1982), 24 C.C.L.T. 222 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Vaters v. Daly (1991), 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 301 A.P.R. 181 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 1].

Edmison v. Boyd (1985), 62 A.R. 118 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Ostby v. Bondar et al. (1998), 218 A.R. 132 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 1].

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. 1].

Watt v. Gillanders, [1992] B.C.J. No. 1117 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

MacDonald v. Vail, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 825; 8 N.R. 155, refd to. [para. 1].

Halkyard et al. v. Mathew et al. (1998), 231 A.R. 281 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Dumais v. Hamilton (1998), 219 A.R. 63; 179 W.A.C. 63 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Harding v. Himel, [1991] O.J. No. 1041 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 1].

Webb et al. v. Motta et al. (1998), 233 A.R. 9 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Falls v. Falls, [1995] B.C.J. No. 968 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Kluvidakis v. Bunker, [1986] O.J. No. 141 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

Schultz v. Lloydminster Hospital, [1995] A.J. No. 1321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Woelk v. Halvorson, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 232; 24 A.R. 620, refd to. [para. 1].

Phillips v. Rost (1996), 185 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Brouwer v. Grewal and Edmonton (City) (1995), 168 A.R. 342 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Lang v. Ballash (1989), 101 A.R. 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Lim v. Hyndman Transport (1972) Ltd. et al. (1991), 119 A.R. 19 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Fobel v. Dean and MacDonald (1991), 93 Sask.R. 103; 4 W.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Youssef v. Pickerl, [1996] 1 P.I.D.P. 4737; 190 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Acheson v. Dory (1993), 138 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 1].

Cugliari v. White et al. (1998), 109 O.A.C. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Videto et al. v. Kennedy (1981), 125 D.L.R.(3d) 127 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Arndt et al. v. Smith, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539; 213 N.R. 243; 92 B.C.A.C. 185; 150 W.A.C. 185; 148 D.L.R.(4th) 48, refd to. [para. 2].

Bernard v. D'Anjou, [1991] O.J. No. 1614 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

McBride and McBride v. Langton (1982), 39 A.R. 61 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

Bonfoco v. Dowd et al. (1998), 53 O.T.C. 41 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

Astaphan v. Austin (1996), 10 O.T.C. 170 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

Astaphan v. Scarborough General Hospital - see Astaphan v. Austin.

Hobson v. Munkley (1976), 74 D.L.R.(3d) 408 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Forlano v. Lane (1981), 65 A.R. 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Haydu v. Calgary (City) and Santo (1991), 116 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

Smith v. Armstrong et al. (1991), 123 A.R. 285 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1; 16 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1; 14 C.C.L.T. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Larbalestier, B., Loss of Housekeeping Revisited, taken from Damages: Building and Proving your Case, Alberta Civil Trial Lawyers Association Seminar (Oc­tober 1998), generally [para. 1].

Picard, Ellen I., and Robertson, Gerald B., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 129, 130 [para. 49].

Sneiderman, Barney, Irvine, John C., and Osborne, Philip H., Canadian Medical Law: An Introduction for Physicians, Nurses and Other Health Care Pro­fessionals (2nd Ed. 1995), generally [para. 1].

Te Lindes, Operative Gynecology, gen­erally [para. 98].

Counsel:

Gary B. Romanchuk and Brendan W. Veale (Ogilvie and Company), for the plaintiffs;

Rose M. Carter and Tracey L. Howell (Bennett Jones), for the defendant.

This case was heard before P.L.J. Smith, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 30, 1999.