Epidurals can be challenging, and needle breakage does not necessarily indicate negligence: court
In a recent decision, the BC Supreme Court dismissed a medical negligence claim against an anesthesiologist brought by a plaintiff who experienced complications during the administration of an epidural.
The plaintiff, who was expecting her first child, was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital. The anesthesiologist, the defendant in this case, attempted to administer an epidural. During the procedure, the epidural needle broke, leaving a fragment in the plaintiff’s back, which had to be surgically removed. The plaintiff argued that the anesthesiologist was negligent, causing significant back pain due to the use of excessive force and numerous redirections of the needle.
The plaintiff asserted that the injury was not directly caused by the broken needle fragment but by the excessive manipulation of the needle. She sought compensation for her ongoing back pain, which she claimed started after the failed epidural attempt.
The defendant argued that the claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant did not meet the standard of care. The defendant also contended that her actions did not cause the plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms and that any damages should be limited to the brief surgical procedure required to remove the needle fragment.
Both parties presented expert testimony from anesthesiologists. The plaintiff's expert opined that the defendant used excessive force and failed to meet the standard of care. In contrast, the defendant's expert argued that the procedure was technically challenging due to the plaintiff's elevated body mass index (BMI) and tough ligamentous tissue.
The Supreme Court found that the anesthesiologist's actions did not breach the standard of care. It noted that epidurals can be challenging and that the needle breakage, while unfortunate, did not necessarily indicate negligence. The court highlighted that the anesthesiologist followed her standard practice and took appropriate steps after the needle broke, including the successful removal of the fragment.
Regarding causation, the court concluded that the plaintiff's ongoing back pain was likely due to degenerative changes in her lumbar region, as indicated by multiple MRIs, rather than the epidural procedure. The court accepted the testimony of the defence's expert, who diagnosed the plaintiff with mechanical back pain unrelated to the epidural attempt.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the anesthesiologist's actions caused her injury. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
