What is the duty of a surgeon to ensure that post-operative care is adequate?

The task of a surgeon does not end with the successful surgery. There is a continuing duty to ensure that there is adequate post operative care. The extent and breath of this care will depend upon, amongst other things; “a) the gravity of the operation, b) the age and general health of the patient, c) the particular problems of the patient, d) the nature of the post-operative medication and treatment required, e) the degree of isolation of the patient, f) the availability and proximity of medical care and hospital facilities, and g) the degree of risk to which the patient is susceptible either from post-operative complications or subsequent medications and treatment.” (Cory. J.A. (as he was) in Taeknyk v. Lake of Woods Clinic [1992] O.J. No. 170 (O.C.A.) at para. 26. IV CAUSATION B) THE LAW

Justice Sopinka in Snell v. Farrell 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311 defined causation: Causation is an expression of the relationship that must be found to exist, between the tortuous act of the wrongdoer and the injury to the victim in order to justify compensation of the latter out of the pocket of the former. (para.26)

In Laferriere v. Lawson (1991) 1991 CanLII 87 (SCC), 78 D.L.R. (4th) 609 (S.C.C.) Mr. Justice Gonthier produced a summary of general observations applicable to causation in medical malpractice, (at p.658). “-The rules of civil responsibility require proof of fault, causation and damage. -Both acts and omissions may amount to fault and both may be analyzed similarly with regard to causation. -Causation in law is not identical to scientific causation. -Causation in law must be established on the balance of probabilities, taking into account all the evidence; factual, statistical and that which the judge is entitled to presume. -In some cases where a fault presents a clear danger and where such danger materializes, it may be reasonable to presume a causal link, unless there is a demonstration to the contrary. -Statistical evidence may be helpful as indicative but is not determinative. In particular, where statistical evidence does not indicate causation on the balance of probabilities, causation in law may nonetheless exist where evidence in the case supports a finding. -Even where statistical and factual evidence do not support a finding of causation on the balance of probabilities with respect to particular damage (ie. death or sickness) such evidence may still justify a finding of causation with respect to lesser damage (ie. slightly shorter life, greater pain). -The evidence must be carefully analyzed to determine the exact nature of the fault or breach of duty and its consequences as well as the particular character of the damage which has been suffered, as experienced by the victim. -If after consideration of these factors a judge is not satisfied that the fault has, on his or her assessment of the balance of probabilities, caused any real damage, then recovery should be denied.”