Is the robust and pragmatic approach used in medical malpractice cases?

Indeed, in Aristorenas v. Comcare Health Services, our Court of Appeal held that the robust and pragmatic approach should not be used as a means of making findings of fact in the absence of evidence that the defendant’s negligence caused the plaintiff’s injury. The majority held: The “robust and pragmatic” approach is not a distinct test for causation but rather an approach to the analysis of the evidence said to demonstrate the necessary causal connection between the conduct and the injury. Importantly, a robust and pragmatic approach must be applied to evidence; it is not a substitute for evidence to show that the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the injury.[28]