Webster et al. v. Chapman et al., (1997) 126 Man.R.(2d) 13 (CA)

• Judge: Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: December 09, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1997), 126 Man.R.(2d) 13 (CA);1997 CanLII 3108 (MB CA);155 DLR (4th) 82;[1998] 4 WWR 335;40 CCLT (2d) 212;[1997] CarswellMan 631;[1997] MJ No 646 (QL);126 Man R (2d) 13;167 WAC 13

Webster v. Chapman (1997), 126 Man.R.(2d) 13 (CA);

    167 W.A.C. 13

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.010

Shirley Kathleen Webster and Trisha Kathleen Joy Webster, an infant who sues by her mother and next friend, Shirley Kathleen Webster (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Seloame David Chapman and Samuel Neil Heywood (defendants/respondents)

(Suit No. AI 96-30-02952)

Indexed As: Webster et al. v. Chapman et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A.

December 9, 1997.

Summary:

A doctor prescribed coumadin for a patient. He warned her against becoming pregnant and inserted an IUCD. The rela­tionship terminated when the patient insisted on the removal of the IUCD. She was again warned not to become pregnant. She dis­covered she was pregnant and consulted another doctor. The doctor continued the treatment with coumadin on the basis that any damage to the fetus had already been sustained. The baby was born with severe disabilities. The patient and the baby sued the two doctors for medical malpractice.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 114 Man.R.(2d) 1, dismissed the claim. The court provisionally assessed damages. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the doctor who continued the treatment with coumadin was negligent.

Medicine - Topic 3048

Relation with patient - Consent to treat­ment - Negligence or fault - Duty of treating doctor to inform patient - Follow­ing the birth of her daughter, a patient was prescribed coumadin for a thrombosis - The patient's general practitioner monitored the treatment - He advised contraception and inserted an IUCD - The relationship was terminated when the patient insisted that the practitioner remove the IUCD - The practitioner again advised the patient not to become pregnant while taking cou­madin - He did not tell her there was a risk to her fetus if she became pregnant while taking coumadin - The patient gave birth to a severely disabled baby - The trial judge held that the practitioner was not negligent - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - See para­graphs 10 to 17.

Medicine - Topic 3048

Relation with patient - Consent to treat­ment - Negligence or fault - Duty of treating doctor to inform patient - [See Medicine - Topic 3050 ].

Medicine - Topic 3050

Relation with patient - Consent to treat­ment - Negligence - Causation - A doctor learned that a patient was in her first tri­mester of pregnancy and was taking cou­madin - The doctor continued the cou­madin treatment without consulting a specialist or advising the patient of the risks involved - The baby was severely disabled - The patient sued the doctor - The trial judge found that the doctor was negligent in failing to consult a specialist immediately and in continuing the cou­madin treatment without informed consent - However, the negligence did not cause the baby's disabilities, because the damage had already been sustained or was inevi­table prior to the continued treatment - The Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the continued administration of coumadin materially contributed to the damage - The court held that the doctor was negligent and that the negligence caused the baby's disabilities - See paragraphs 18 to 46.

Medicine - Topic 4248

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to inform patient of uncer­tainties of treatment - [See Medicine - Topic 3050 ].

Medicine - Topic 4249

Liability of practitioners - Negligence or fault - Failure to refer - [See Medicine - Topic 3050 ].

Torts - Topic 35

Negligence - Standard of care - Particular persons and relationships - Medical doc­tors and medical personnel - [See first Medi­cine - Topic 3048 and Medicine - Topic 3050 ].

Cases Noticed:

Reibl v. Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880; 33 N.R. 361; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 11].

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; 195 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 20].

Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates, [1953] S.C. 34, refd to. [para. 31].

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. 42].

McGhee v. National Coal Board, [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1 (H.L.(Sc.)), refd to. [para. 43].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Walker, David M., The Oxford Compan­ion to Law (1980), p. 453 [para. 30].

Counsel:

N.A. Cuddy and M.L. Lautt, for the appel­lants;

R.L. Handlon and E.E.I. Beaupre, for the respondent, Chapman;

G.T. Campbell, J.B. Kroft and N.M. Watson, for the respondent, Heywood.

This appeal was heard on April 7 and 8, 1997, before Twaddle, Lyon and Helper, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. On December 9, 1997, Twaddle, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.