Who is popular today?

THE High Court has dismissed a medical negligence claim brought by an accident victim against the North Central Regional Health Authority (NCRHA) after ruling that doctors at the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex, Mt Hope, exercised reasonable care in treating his 2011 fracture.
Vern Khan had alleged that hospital staff failed to provide timely surgery, neglected proper post-operative care and caused the permanent loss of function in his right arm. However, Justice Joan Charles found that the evidence, including his testimony and that of his expert witness, did not establish that medical staff deviated from accepted professional standards.
Justice Charles held that while Khan experienced delays in scheduling corrective surgery, those delays were attributable to systemic resource constraints in the public health system, not negligence. The court further accepted the testimony of consultant orthopaedic surgeon Dr Anil Kumar, who said the hospital’s initial 19-day delay for surgery was medically justified because Khan presented alcohol intoxication, elevated white blood cell counts, facial nerve palsy and signs of depression.
Khan was hospitalised on April 19, 2011, after being reportedly thrown out of his vehicle, which had fallen from a height of 30 feet, and underwent surgery on May 9, 2011.
His condition later worsened, and he claimed the deterioration stemmed from negligent care – particularly the removal of his back-slab cast and alleged lack of follow-up by specialists. However, the court found that Khan refused medical advice to keep the cast on, contributing to the destabilisation of the repaired fracture.
The judge also rejected the conclusions of Khan’s expert, Dr Stephen Ramroop, noting inaccuracies and contradictions in his testimony, including an incorrect assertion that no post-operative X-ray had been performed.
Justice Charles ruled that Khan failed to meet the legal burden of proving a breach of the duty of care or a causal link between any alleged breach and his injury.
“The claimant was required to establish that the medical practitioner failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care, in that he failed to act in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art,” Justice Charles noted in her ruling.
In deciding the case, she said, “On the evidence before me, the claimant failed to demonstrate a deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent medical professional; on the contrary, from the evidence of the claimant’s own witness, Dr Ramroop, the claimant received proper care in hospital prior to and after the surgical procedure performed to repair his fracture.
“His evidence fell far short of establishing that the defendant’s decision to prioritise stabilisation of the claimant over immediate surgical intervention was outwith the range of reasonable professional practice.
“The claimant’s condition upon admission – intoxication, elevated blood pressure, elevated white blood cells and suicidal ideation – supported the defendant’s decision to stabilise his physical and mental issues before surgery, and was, in my view, in line with established medical protocols for managing the claimant’s injury and mental health, elevated blood pressure and intoxication.
“The claimant’s evidence also failed to establish on a balance of probability that the medical staff at the defendant’s hospital treated him negligently, which resulted in further injury to him. “His expert having agreed that he was managed and treated appropriately both pre- and post-surgery, but for the delay in scheduling the corrective surgery, his claim of negligent treatment up to the date when he was advised to make an appointment for remedial surgery must fail.”
Charles further noted that Khan’s evidence on his post-surgical treatment was inconsistent and false, and adopted false assertions that the hospital failed to administer specialist care to him.
“The claimant disregarded medical advice to his own hurt and cannot now claim that the defendant, through its medical staff, failed to exercise the ordinary skill of ordinary competent doctors and healthcare professionals during the management of his care, which caused him to suffer injury.”
The judge also noted that the NCRHA, responsible for running public hospitals, where, except in emergencies, surgery must be scheduled due to long waiting lists.
“Systemic delays within a public healthcare facility do not automatically amount to negligence unless there is deviation from the accepted standard of care.
“There is no evidence of a deviation from standard care in the treatment of the claimant before me.
“Furthermore, I agree with the defendant’s submission that the delay in rescheduling the remedial surgery was due to hospital resource limitations as opposed to negligence.”
“In all the circumstances of this case, I hold that the claimant has failed to establish on a balance of probability that the defendant’s medical staff was negligent.
“The treatment given to the claimant met the standard of ‘the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill’
“Even Dr Ramroop acknowledged that the claimant’s treatment at the hospital pre-operation and post was in accordance with standard treatment for that injury.”
The court ordered judgment in favour of the NCRHA, dismissed the claim, and awarded the authority costs of $14,000.
Pavitra Ramharack and Brandon Sirju represented Khan, while Colin Blaize and Farai Hove Masaisai represented the NCRHA.
The post Judge dismisses accident victim's medical negligence claim against NCRHA appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.