May 16, 2025 From Bogoroch & Associates

Medication Errors: A Preventable Threat in Canadian Healthcare

Each year, thousands of Canadians are harmed by something that should help them—medication. Whether it’s the wrong dosage, an incorrect drug, or a failure to monitor adverse reactions, medication errors are a hidden but significant source of injury, hospitalization, and even death.

What Is a Medication Error?

The Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) defines a medication error as a “preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm.” These mistakes can happen at any point in the medication process: prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, administering, or monitoring.

Where and How Do Medication Errors Happen?

1. Prescribing Stage:

• Wrong drug or dosage
• Misdiagnosis or failure to check allergies

2. Transcribing Stage:

• Errors inputting handwritten prescriptions into digital systems
• Confusion over abbreviations or illegible notes

3. Dispensing Stage:

• Wrong medication or incorrect label
• Confusion between similar drug names or packaging

4. Administration Stage:

• Delivered to the wrong patient or via the wrong route (e.g., oral vs. IV)
• Distracted or fatigued staff

5. Monitoring Stage:

• Failure to watch for interactions or adverse effects
• Missing lab tests or follow-ups

Every stage introduces opportunities for mistakes—especially in high-pressure environments like emergency rooms.

Common and Dangerous Medication Errors

• Wrong Dose or Strength: Particularly dangerous in children and older adults, often caused by unit miscalculations or incorrect weight-based dosing.
• Wrong Medication: Look-alike/sound-alike drug names (e.g., Celebrex vs. Celexa) are common culprits.
• Incorrect Route: Administering a drug via the wrong route can drastically change its effect—and in some cases, be fatal.

Root Causes: More Than Just Human Error

While it’s easy to point to individual mistakes, most medication errors arise from systemic issues:

• Communication Breakdowns: During shift changes or incomplete patient histories
• High-Stress Environments: Emergency departments, ICU units, and surgical suites see more errors due to multitasking, fatigue, and time pressure
• Inadequate Safety Protocols: When double-checks, alerts, or scanning systems are ignored, errors slip through

Prevention Is Possible—If the Systems Work

Some best practices that reduce errors include:

• Electronic Prescribing (E-Prescribing): Minimizes handwriting and transcription issues
• Barcode Scanning Systems: Verifies medication matches the patient and prescription
• Independent Double-Checks: Especially for high-risk drugs or pediatric doses
• Education & Ongoing Training: Regular refreshers for staff on common drug mix-ups and protocol changes

However, none of these work unless they’re used consistently—and unfortunately, that’s often where the system fails.

Medication errors may be underreported, but they are far from rare—and for the patients who suffer because of them, the impact is life-altering. While technology and training can help, accountability and consistent application are essential.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

From Canadian Lawyer Magazine

In Lucuta v. Stevens, 2025 ONSC 1576, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled against a woman who sought to reopen her medical malpractice case years after reaching a settlement. The plaintiff alleged she accepted the agreement under duress—but the court found no evidence to support her claims.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a knee injury the plaintiff sustained in 2010, for which she was treated by two doctors at Grand River Hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. Four years later, she launched a lawsuit, alleging negligent treatment and lack of informed consent.

She also pursued a professional conduct complaint against the doctors with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In June 2019, on the same day a hearing was held by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the doctors’ lawyer sent her a settlement offer.

By August 2019, she had accepted the proposal and later signed documents formally ending the legal proceedings—acknowledging in writing that she was doing so freely and without coercion.

Plaintiff Later Claims Duress

In 2023, four years after the case was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the settlement. She claimed she had been under economic pressure and faced threats and coercion that rendered the agreement invalid.

The defendants maintained that the plaintiff entered into the agreement voluntarily and had every opportunity to seek legal counsel.

Court Finds No Evidence of Coercion

The court firmly rejected the plaintiff’s motion. Key reasons included:

• The plaintiff had legal training and participated effectively in the legal process up to the point of settlement.
• There was no documentary evidence of coercion, threats, or improvidence.
• Communications from the defendants’ lawyer were professional and encouraged her to obtain independent legal advice.
• Her acceptance letter and release forms made no mention of discomfort or pressure.

The judge also noted that affidavits submitted by the plaintiff were vague, uncorroborated, and written years after the fact—lacking the credibility required to reopen the matter.

How The Plaintiff Fell Short

Ultimately, the court emphasized that the plaintiff avoided a trial and the financial risks that come with losing a lawsuit. The settlement offered clear benefits, and there was no indication it was unfair or unreasonable.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

March 25, 2025 from Medscape

For decades, doctors facing malpractice claims have successfully defended themselves by citing customary medical practice. But a new update from the American Law Institute (ALI) is challenging that long-standing norm.

The ALI, a respected nonprofit that influences legal standards across the U.S., is urging courts to judge medical negligence based on what a reasonable doctor using up-to-date scientific evidence would do—not just what’s typically done in the profession.

This change comes after high-profile cases like that of Dr. Daniel Merenstein, a Virginia physician who was sued for not ordering a PSA test for a patient with no clear symptoms. Although he followed national guidelines and discussed the risks and benefits with the patient, a jury sided against him—penalizing evidence-based, patient-centered care in favor of outdated habits.

Evidence Over Tradition

According to the ALI’s May 2024 update, courts should stop relying on “local custom” or traditional practices to define the standard of care. Instead, judges and juries should evaluate whether the physician’s actions were reasonable based on current medical evidence.

“This helps ensure patients receive safer, more modern care,”

said Christopher Robertson, JD, PhD, who advised the ALI and co-authored a summary of the update in JAMA.

“It also protects physicians who are following science, not just habits.”

What This Means in Court

Previously, many doctors could defend lawsuits by saying, “That’s just how we do it.” But ALI’s guidance shifts the focus. While doctors can still cite customary practices, they’ll also need to show that those practices align with modern science.

This could reduce “defensive medicine,” where physicians order unnecessary tests to avoid legal risk rather than improve patient outcomes.

As malpractice lawyer Michael Moroney put it,

“We’re moving from gut feelings and routine to analytics—like baseball did. But you still need judgment.”

Informed Consent Also Under Review

The ALI also proposes changes to how informed consent is evaluated. Historically, courts asked what a “reasonable patient” would do with more information. The ALI suggests a shift toward the individual patient—asking whether that specific patient would have chosen a different path if they were fully informed.

Lawyer Catherine Flynn, who defends providers, notes that most jurisdictions still use the “reasonable patient” standard, but acknowledges the ALI’s influence may eventually reshape this part of the law as well.

Communication and Documentation Are Key

Legal experts agree: better documentation and clearer patient communication will be essential in this new legal landscape.

“Physicians who document their thought process—why they chose a treatment and how it aligns with the best available evidence—will be better protected,”

said Ben Flattery, JD, who represents hospitals and works in medical risk management.

He added that good communication helps prevent lawsuits before they begin.

“If patients feel respected and understand their care, they’re less likely to sue.”

Attorney Amy Griggs echoed the point:

“Most malpractice claims stem from breakdowns in communication—either with the patient or between providers. Fix that, and you fix a lot.”

This shift by the ALI signals a major turning point in how malpractice is judged. Doctors who follow evidence and engage patients in informed decisions may finally receive legal backing for doing the right thing—science, not custom, is the new standard.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

March 20, 2025 from Edzi’u Loverin via CBC News

In December 2024, Justin Flett, a 46-year-old Tataskweyak Cree Nation member, filed a lawsuit against an ER doctor in The Pas, Manitoba, along with the Northern and Winnipeg Regional Health Authorities. Flett alleges that the doctor misdiagnosed his acute appendicitis as a hangover and made racially charged comments during a January 2023 ER visit.

Flett claimed the doctor told him, “I don’t treat hangovers,” while assessing him for nausea and abdominal pain. Flett later required emergency surgery in Winnipeg after his appendix burst.

Doctor Responds: Denial of Negligence and Racism

In a statement of defence filed on March 14, 2025, the doctor denied making racist comments or acting negligently. He stated that while Flett reported drinking heavily in the days prior, he was not intoxicated and did not present with signs of a serious or emergent illness at the time of examination.

The doctor cited that:

• Flett reported mild discomfort but had no fever or alarming symptoms.
• Lab results were reassuring.
• The clinical picture suggested general, non-emergent abdominal pain.
• Flett was advised to follow up with a general practitioner or seek emergency care if symptoms worsened.

Timeline and Alleged Injury

Flett left The Pas and traveled by bus to Winnipeg later that morning, where his condition deteriorated. By early the next day, doctors at Seven Oaks Hospital diagnosed him with acute appendicitis, which had already ruptured. He was transferred to Grace Hospital for surgery and treated for infection.

Defence Challenges Allegations

The doctor contends that he had no knowledge or involvement in Flett’s care after discharge and argues that the lawsuit fails to establish any breach of fiduciary duty or negligence.

His legal team argues:

• The plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
• The claim lacks sufficient legal basis.
• Any alleged injuries were not caused by the defendant’s care.
• The damages sought are “excessive and too remote.”

The defence is seeking full dismissal of the lawsuit with costs.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

May 24, 2025 from Medscape

A 61-year-old man underwent elective left endoscopic plantar fascia release under general anaesthesia. Though generally fit, he developed a bilateral pulmonary embolism one month after the procedure. The patient pursued a clinical negligence claim, alleging inadequate thromboprophylaxis led to avoidable harm, including heart strain and delayed physiotherapy.

Misclassification of Risk

The patient was incorrectly categorized as “very high risk” for venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to an inaccurate risk assessment by a healthcare assistant. In reality, his score should have classified him as “high risk” due to age and BMI. The surgery itself was considered low risk for VTE, and he received appropriate mechanical prophylaxis and safety netting information on discharge.

Expert Reviews Support Surgeon’s Care

The Medical Protection Society obtained expert reports from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and a haematologist. Both agreed that:

• Delegating the risk assessment to a nurse was reasonable.
• Even with a corrected score, chemical prophylaxis would not typically be used for this type of surgery.
• The management complied with NICE guidelines and national audit findings for similar procedures.

They also found no clear causation between the surgery and the embolism. Hospital records described the event as “unprovoked.”

A formal letter denying liability was sent to the patient’s legal team, leading them to confirm they were no longer pursuing the matter. The case was considered successfully defended.

Important Takeaways

• Verify delegated assessments: Surgeons should personally review and agree with VTE risk scores.
• Document informed consent and safety netting: Clear records can be crucial in defending against negligence claims.
• Rely on guidelines: National recommendations and audits can help justify clinical decisions.
• Causation matters: Even with adverse outcomes, proving negligence requires a direct link between action and harm.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

December 6, 2024 from Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon via CBC News   

Man Dies After 7 Hours in ER Waiting Room

The family of Darrell Mesheau has filed a negligence lawsuit against Horizon Health Network, registered nurse Danielle Othen, and licensed practical nurse April Knowles, after Mesheau died in the emergency room waiting area of Dr. Everett Chalmers Regional Hospital on July 12, 2022. Mesheau, 78, was found unresponsive in a wheelchair approximately seven hours after arriving by ambulance.

Lawsuit Alleges ‘Reckless and Outrageous’ Conduct

The lawsuit, brought by Mesheau’s sister Susan Mesheau as executor of his estate, alleges that the hospital and nurses failed to monitor his condition adequately. Despite being triaged as a Level 3 (urgent) case, the family contends that Mesheau’s vitals were checked only twice during his entire stay and that staff failed to reassess him every 30 minutes as required.

The family’s statement of claim asserts that he received no interaction from medical staff between 2:03 a.m. and the time he was discovered unresponsive at around 4:28 a.m.

Defendants Deny Negligence

In a statement of defence, the defendants, represented by lawyer Ryan Burgoyne, admit to the timeline of events but deny any wrongdoing. They maintain that Horizon staff used reasonable care and skill and did not deviate from the expected standard of care.

The defence also disputes claims that Othen failed to collect and document Mesheau’s medical history and contends that none of the actions or omissions of the hospital or nurses contributed to his death, which was attributed to heart failure.

Horizon Seeks Dismissal With Costs

Horizon Health is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit with costs. The defendants assert that the Mesheau family is not entitled to the damages sought and are demanding strict proof of any alleged losses. The plaintiffs are pursuing damages for loss of companionship, financial loss, and punitive damages, among other relief.

While none of the allegations have been proven in court, the case has gained significant public attention following a coroner’s inquest and a sweeping leadership shakeup within New Brunswick’s healthcare system.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

December 6, 2024 from Angelica Dino via Law Times News  

In a recent medical malpractice case involving a child left with cerebral palsy after a birth injury, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reduced a law firm’s legal fee from the requested $4.1 million to $3.25 million. The court found the contingency fee arrangement lacked fairness, transparency, and essential legal disclosures.

The Background: A Devastating Birth Injury

The case stemmed from a 2009 delivery during which the child’s brain was deprived of oxygen, leading to a later diagnosis of cerebral palsy. In 2015, the family retained Almeda Wallbridge of Wallbridge, Wallbridge to pursue a lawsuit against the hospital and medical staff. The case ultimately settled in 2023 for $14 million, covering both damages and legal costs.

Fee Agreement Fails Legal Requirements

The firm sought approval for its fee under a 2018 contingency fee agreement (CFA) that promised one-third of the damages—totaling $4.1 million. Because the client was a minor, court approval was required. Upon review, the court found that the CFA failed to meet the standards under Ontario’s Solicitors Act, which governs legal fees and mandates clear client disclosures.

Key problems included:

• Lack of explanation about alternate fee options
• Missing details on client decision-making rights
• A power imbalance worsened by the family’s vulnerable position

The court noted that consumer protection was at the heart of CFA regulations, particularly when clients are inexperienced or under disability.

Billing Discrepancies Raise Doubts

The firm also submitted reconstructed time records showing over 3,000 hours of work—but without contemporaneous timekeeping. The court found the records unreliable and noted that the settlement amount was lower than initial damage estimates from both sides.

A Balanced Fee: $3.25 Million

In determining a fair fee, the court considered:

• Time and complexity involved
• Results achieved
• Risk assumed by the law firm
• The client’s long-term needs

The court emphasized that contingency fees must be fair in each individual case, not based on a lawyer’s overall practice. The adjusted fee aimed to preserve more of the settlement for the child’s lifelong care.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

December 6, 2024 from Erin Jeon via  Manitoba Access to Justice  

Canadians overwhelmingly trust their healthcare providers—but when mistakes happen, the path to justice for victims is nearly impassable. Despite the life-altering nature of medical negligence, fewer than 1% of highly preventable adverse events lead to compensation.

In 2022, only 2.59% of such events led to legal action. Of the cases that did proceed, most were dismissed, abandoned, or discontinued. Just 8 out of 985 resolved cases resulted in judgment for the plaintiff.

Barriers Start with the Cost of Pursuing a Claim

To pursue a malpractice case, most lawyers require the claim to be worth at least $250,000. This economic barrier excludes patients who suffered less severe—yet still significant—harm. On top of this threshold, plaintiffs must afford expert witnesses and endure lengthy litigation, which averages 38 months.

If the case is lost, the plaintiff may be responsible for paying part of the physician’s legal costs—a major risk that deters many from even trying.

The Legal Burden is Especially Hard to Meet in Medicine

Even if a patient gets to court, they must prove the doctor breached the standard of care and that the harm would not have occurred but for that breach. Proving causation in medicine is notoriously difficult due to the complexity and variability of health outcomes.

Informed consent claims are just as challenging. Courts often side with doctors, accepting the idea that most reasonable patients follow medical advice—even if options weren’t presented.

Plaintiffs Face a Formidable Opponent: The CMPA

Nearly all Canadian physicians are represented by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA)—a powerful organization with over $6 billion in assets. It hires top-tier legal teams and expert witnesses, and covers all legal costs for physicians. This makes physicians less likely to settle and more protected from consequences—even when they are found negligent.

The CMPA’s power, the high cost of litigation, and the legal complexity of proving medical negligence combine to form nearly insurmountable barriers for victims. The result is a justice system that simply doesn’t work for most people harmed by medical malpractice.

What Can Be Done?

Some countries, like New Zealand and Denmark, have adopted no-fault compensation schemes. While not perfect, these systems offer a pathway for broader access to justice and more timely support for injured patients.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.

February 11, 2025 from Zoe Beketova via the  Yale Daily News  

 Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale University are facing a medical negligence lawsuit after five patients were allegedly left to suffer in the intensive care unit without proper pain medication. The plaintiffs, including one surviving ICU patient and the family members of four deceased patients, claim that a nurse at Yale’s Saint Raphael Campus diluted opioid painkillers and anti-anxiety medications with salt water.

The lawsuit states that in 2022, a Yale nurse noticed inconsistencies in medication bottles — signs that controlled substances may have been tampered with. A subsequent internal investigation revealed widespread dilution of hydromorphone, lorazepam, and diazepam. Despite this, nurse Sean Falzarano accessed and removed drugs even on days he wasn’t scheduled to work.

Falzarano Pleads Guilty

Falzarano pleaded guilty in December 2024 to tampering with Lorazepam vials and is awaiting sentencing in March 2025. His nursing license has been suspended. Investigators found tampered vials in his backpack along with tools used to reseal them. FDA analysis found that medication doses were reduced to as little as 1.35% of their intended strength.

Hospital Procedures Under Scrutiny

Despite Yale New Haven Health’s claims of robust safety measures, the plaintiffs allege a failure to adequately track drug inventories or limit access to storage. Falzarano retained access even when not on shift, and pharmacists were not required to verify proper returns of controlled substances.

This is not the first drug diversion case linked to Yale. In 2020, nurse Donna Monticone was found guilty of diverting large amounts of fentanyl from Yale’s fertility clinic, leading to a six-figure civil settlement.

Call for Accountability

“We look forward to getting patients and their loved ones the justice they deserve,” 

said plaintiffs’ attorney Kelly Fitzpatrick. The families involved hope this case will drive changes in how hospitals manage and monitor high-risk medications.

At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.