The patient attributed a stroke she suffered to the use of the contraceptive
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has rendered a decision in a medical negligence case involving a dispute over the prescription of the hormonal birth control pill, Yaz.
The case, brought by Valerie McLean against Dr. Mikas A. Valadka, revolved around allegations of failure to inform about the increased risks associated with Yaz compared to another contraceptive, Alesse, which McLean had previously taken. McLean attributed a stroke she suffered to the use of Yaz, claiming that Dr. Valadka did not adequately disclose the risks involved.
After careful consideration of the evidence and expert testimonies, the court dismissed McLean's action, finding that Dr. Valadka had indeed met the standard of care required in providing informed consent. The court pointed out that while Dr. Valadka's note-taking on the day he provided the Yaz samples was lacking, this oversight did not directly cause McLean's stroke. The judgment emphasized the significance of causation in medical negligence claims, concluding that McLean failed to prove that her use of Yaz caused the stroke.
The trial delved into the complex issues of informed consent, causation, and damages within the medical-legal landscape. McLean argued that she was not informed of the increased relative risks of using Yaz over Alesse, a claim Dr. Valadka contested by stating he had discussed the risks with her. The court highlighted the importance of patient understanding and acceptance of medical risks, noting that McLean had previously accepted similar risks with other medications.
Expert testimony played a pivotal role in the case, with both parties presenting evidence from medical professionals. The court's analysis underscored the need for thorough documentation by healthcare providers and the weight of expert opinions in determining the standard of care and causation in medical negligence cases.
Read more: Biggest medical negligence cases in Canadian history
Regarding damages, the court assessed claims for past and future income loss, loss of an interdependent relationship, and future care costs. While the court acknowledged some level of past income loss, it found no basis for future income loss, attributing McLean's ability to work to her own assertions rather than medical evidence. The claim for loss of an interdependent relationship was dismissed as speculative and without merit, reflecting the courts' reluctance to award damages in such cases without significant evidence of severe cognitive or physical impairment.
Ultimately, the court ruled that McLean was provided with informed consent by Dr. Valadka, and that she has not established that the Yaz caused her stroke. Accordingly, the court dismissed the action.
