Ostrowski v. Lotto

Ostrowski v. Lotto

The Supreme Court held there was no want of reasonable care and skill in the performance of the McMurray osteotomy, in the respondent’s interpretation of X‑rays or in post‑operative treatment; contemporaneous specialist reports and subsequent expert opinion negated negligence and the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1973] SCR 220
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Jan Ostrowski and Slawomira Ostrowski; Defendant/respondent: Dr. Wallace N. Lotto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 1972
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence (professional Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside the trial judgment is affirmed.
Legal Topics
Standard of Care, Post Operative Care, Causation, Medical Expert Evidence, Radiological Interpretation
Source Language
english
Medical Malpractice Professional Negligence Tort Law Standard of Care Post Operative Care Causation Medical Expert Evidence Radiological Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Ostrowski and Slawomira Ostrowski

Plaintiffs/appellants

Dr. Wallace N. Lotto

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence (professional Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the surgeon was negligent in performing a McMurray osteotomy
  2. 2 Whether the surgeon was negligent in post-operative treatment and follow-up
  3. 3 Whether the surgeon misinterpreted X‑rays

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held there was no want of reasonable care and skill in the performance of the McMurray osteotomy, in the respondent’s interpretation of X‑rays or in post‑operative treatment; contemporaneous specialist reports and subsequent expert opinion negated negligence and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal setting aside the trial judgment is affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowing the appeal from the trial judgment is affirmed.