Search standard of care, informed consent, causation, hospital liability, expert evidence, and more — backed by real case law.
Medical malpractice claims require proving that a health professional fell below the accepted standard of care — Casey searches millions of court decisions to surface verified case law on negligence, consent, and medical liability.
Medical malpractice claims require proving that a health professional fell below the accepted standard of care — Casey searches millions of court decisions to surface verified case law on negligence, consent, and medical liability.
Real Scenarios
1
Standard of Care Analysis
The standard of care is measured against what a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would have done. Courts rely heavily on expert evidence to establish what that standard requires in specific clinical situations.
Prompt:
“What cases define the standard of care for a general surgeon performing a routine appendectomy?”
Casey returns decisions where courts evaluated expert testimony on surgical technique, pre-operative assessment, and post-operative monitoring to determine whether the surgeon's conduct met the standard of care.
2
Informed Consent Failures
Physicians must disclose material risks of proposed treatments so patients can make informed decisions. Courts apply a modified objective test to determine whether the patient would have refused the treatment had proper disclosure been made.
Prompt:
“What cases discuss informed consent failures where physicians did not disclose surgical risks?”
Casey surfaces decisions analyzing what constitutes a material risk, how courts apply the modified objective test, and what evidence is needed to prove the patient would have chosen differently with full information.
3
Causation in Medical Negligence
Even when negligence is established, the plaintiff must prove the negligence caused the harm. Medical causation is often the most difficult element, particularly when the patient had a pre-existing condition or uncertain prognosis.
Prompt:
“How do courts apply the but-for test for causation in medical malpractice cases?”
Casey retrieves rulings explaining how courts apply the but-for causation test, when material contribution applies, and how judges handle cases where the medical evidence on causation is uncertain.
4
Diagnostic Errors and Delays
Failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis can allow conditions to worsen significantly. Courts assess whether the physician conducted appropriate investigations and whether earlier diagnosis would have changed the outcome.
Prompt:
“What cases involve liability for delayed cancer diagnosis by a family physician?”
Casey returns decisions where courts examined referral timelines, diagnostic workup adequacy, and whether earlier detection on the balance of probabilities would have led to a better outcome for the patient.
5
Hospital Systemic Negligence
Hospitals can be directly liable for systemic failures in policies, staffing, or equipment that contribute to patient harm. This is distinct from vicarious liability for individual staff errors and can be harder to identify.
Prompt:
“What cases hold hospitals directly liable for systemic failures contributing to patient injury?”
Casey surfaces decisions distinguishing between vicarious and direct hospital liability, examining staffing ratios, equipment maintenance protocols, and communication systems that courts found inadequate.
6
Expert Evidence Requirements
Medical malpractice cases almost always require expert witnesses. Courts act as gatekeepers for expert evidence, assessing qualifications, methodology, and whether the opinions fall within the expert's area of specialization.
Prompt:
“What cases discuss the admissibility of expert evidence in medical malpractice proceedings?”
Casey returns rulings on expert qualification standards, the Mohan criteria for admissibility, and cases where expert evidence was excluded for lacking proper methodology or falling outside the witness's expertise.
Real Scenarios
The standard of care is measured against what a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would have done. Courts rely heavily on expert evidence to establish what that standard requires in specific clinical situations.
Prompt:
“What cases define the standard of care for a general surgeon performing a routine appendectomy?”
Casey returns decisions where courts evaluated expert testimony on surgical technique, pre-operative assessment, and post-operative monitoring to determine whether the surgeon's conduct met the standard of care.
The Canadian Medical Protective Association defends the vast majority of medical malpractice claims in Canada — and fewer than 30% of cases that proceed to trial result in a finding of liability against the physician.
Ask Casey your question and get answers backed by real case law — free for the public, powerful for professionals.