The medical procedure giving rise to this action and successful JDR was a vitrectomy that took place in Alberta, Canada. The plaintiff, Smith, had been suffering from impaired vision in his right eye, which was minorly affecting his work as a laboratory technician. In March 1999, a licensed ophthalmologist recommended that Smith undergo a vitrectomy surgery to his right eye to improve his vision. Upon this recommendation, Smith opted to have the ophthalmologist perform the surgery in June 1999.

When Smith arrived for surgery, the anesthesiologist determined that topical, rather than general anesthesia, was appropriate for the surgery. The anesthesiologist administered the anesthesia and then inserted a needle to the right eye, causing Smith extreme pain. The anesthesiologist subsequently administered stronger anesthetic to his right eye. Smith still alleged that the treatment was not strong enough to numb his right eye, but the ophthalmologist went ahead and began the vitrectomy surgery. Smith again experienced extreme pain and moved suddenly, causing the ophthalmologist's needle to perforate the globe of Smith's right eye, resulting in vitreous and preretinal hemorrhage. Further sedation was added to the eye, and the ophthalmologist completed the vitrectomy successfully. However, Smith had to undergo several more surgeries to attempt to correct the damage resulting from the eye's perforated globe over the subsequent two years.

Major Issues in Dispute

In plaintiff Smith's Statement of Claim against the ophthalmologist and the anesthesiologist for negligent medical care, he alleged that his right eye's vision had become even more impaired than when he initially sought care from the ophthalmologist. He claimed that this increased and permanent vision impairment further hindered his ability to do his job as a laboratory technician, which required analyzing details under a microscope, and led to loss of past and prospective income. He also claimed that he was unable to complete regular day-to-day tasks and required home care and other services. Finally, he asserted that he suffered depression as a result of his injuries and had begun taking medication. In total, he sought damages approaching $5 million.

Neither of the defendants disputed the majority of factual events giving rise to the claim, but they challenged that any damages suffered by the plaintiff resulted from the doctors’ negligence or other misconduct.