What is the scope of the duty to disclose in medical malpractice cases?

In considering the scope of the duty to disclose, in the trial decision of Reibl v. Hughes, supra, the court at pp. 43‑4 sets out that this evaluation by the court is to be determined usually on the basis of expert medical evidence. In this case, there was no such evidence for the defence.

In Reibl v. Hughes, supra, the plaintiff was one year and a half away from earning a lifetime retirement pension when he followed the recommendation of his surgeon to submit to an operation which was not strictly necessary at that time, and which left him paralyzed. The patient stated he would have chosen a shorter normal life, than a longer one as a cripple. At least he would have waited until his pension vested, as, after the surgery’s results, he was unable to continue his employment and was disentitled to extended disability benefits and a pension.