Patient alleges failure to diagnose properly or delayed medical opinion of his condition
The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court refused to set aside a notice of discontinuance against a health authority upon finding that it could fully evaluate a patient’s medical negligence claim against his doctor without the health authority’s involvement.
In Hart v. Boodhun, 2025 NLSC 65, the patient, via his legal counsel, filed a statement of claim in February 2016. He claimed medical negligence in a doctor’s services during medical visits in 2014. He alleged the doctor fell short of the general duty of care, failed to diagnose his medical condition properly, or delayed the diagnosis.
The patient added the Central Regional Integrated Health Authority as a defendant. He argued that Central Health was vicariously liable as an employer for the doctor’s negligence as its employee and liable for the doctor’s actions as its agent, servant, and employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The doctor’s defence denied negligence or liability to the patient.
In May 2017, the patient’s legal counsel – who had also filed the statement of claim – prepared, presented, and filed a notice of discontinuance to discontinue his action against Central Health. The notice included the written consent of both defendants’ solicitors under r. 19.02 of NL’s Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986.
In May 2018, the patient’s legal counsel applied to withdraw as solicitors of record based on a fundamental breakdown and loss of confidence in the solicitor-client relationship.
In the current proceeding, the patient applied to set aside the notice of discontinuance. He said the medical negligence claim could continue against Central Health in addition to the doctor because he learned about Central Health’s violations after the filing of the notice of discontinuance.
The patient suggested Central Health’s liability for the doctor’s alleged medical negligence went beyond vicarious liability and extended to a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to report and investigate the doctor’s activities.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the patient’s application to set aside the notice of discontinuance and reinstate the case against Central Health as the second defendant.
First, the court ruled that the patient or his legal counsel did not file the notice of discontinuance against Central Health by mistake, inadvertence, or misapprehension. The court noted that the same legal counsel who had filed the statement of claim also brought the notice of discontinuance on his behalf and remained active in this case file for three years after the statement of claim’s filing.
Next, the court saw no exceptional or compelling circumstances in the patient’s allegations that would justify the court exercising its discretion to set aside the notice of discontinuance filed in 2017 and thus disrupt its finality.
The court held that the patient failed to provide evidence showing that Central Health’s involvement in this matter was necessary for the court to fully evaluate the negligence issues between him and the doctor.
The court found that the patient’s new submissions relating to Central Health were not present in his statement of claim alleging vicarious liability and were not compelling grounds to set aside the notice of discontinuance. The court said the patient should file a separate action if he had additional claims against Central Health.
The court noted that evaluating whether the doctor was negligent would entail reviewing his conduct and delivery of medical services to the patient and comparing his actions with the required standard of care. The court added that the doctor’s defence did not allege that Central Health, its policies, or its other staff had any involvement in the services he rendered.
The court concluded that the notice of discontinuance did not frustrate or eliminate the patient’s ability to proceed with his action against the doctor as the remaining defendant and did not affect the patient’s ability to seek recourse against or remedies from the doctor.
