What is the test for “ought to have discovered” in a medical malpractice case?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Capital Power PPA Management Inc v TransAlta Corporation, 2018 ABQB 1036 (CanLII):
In determining whether the plaintiff “ought to have discovered”, the test is whether a reasonable person in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have known that the injuries occurred, were arguably attributable to the defendant, and warranted bringing a claim. A plaintiff must exercise due diligence and investigate facts that suggest it may have a claim, and take appropriate action: Ewing v. Allen, 2015 ABQB 264, at para. 32 (Master Hanebury).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts treated the word "medical services" in a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
In a medical malpractice case, is a doctor permitted to refer to a patient’s medical chart containing information that is not relevant to the patient? (Alberta, Canada)
Is it appropriate for a medical professional to be considered a non-treating physician in a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
What are the costs of a claim for malpractice brought by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
In a medical malpractice case, can a medical professional become an insurer? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test to be applied in the resolution of a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the standard of care expected by a doctor in a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test of reasonable care in medical malpractice cases? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the burden of proving consent in medical malpractice cases? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the difference between facts and evidence in a medical malpractice case? (Alberta, Canada)
