BC Supreme Court Denies Medical Malpractice Claim

Judge sees no link between patient’s obstructive sleep apnea symptoms and oral surgeon’s care The British Columbia Supreme Court did not find enough evidence of a medical, temporal, or other connection between an oral maxillofacial surgeon’s treatment and the new or aggravated symptoms associated with his patient’s obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) to prove causation at common law. In Antepyan-Ruckenstein v Cadili, 2026 BCSC 1715, the plaintiff was a pharmacist living in Coquitlam, BC. He received an OSA diagnosis in 2022. According to the plaintiff, his fatigue and sleep apnea issues might have started after the removal of his premolars during his childhood. He said his symptoms progressively worsened and eventually prevented him from working. In the lead-up to the subject surgical procedure, the plaintiff met or consulted numerous oral maxillofacial surgeons. At UBC Hospital in June 2022, the defendant doctor performed jaw surgery for correcting the plaintiff’s OSA. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action against the defendants, who were the doctor and his corporation. Specifically, the plaintiff asserted: Based on the plaintiff’s claims, the Supreme Court of British Columbia identified the following features of the actual treatment that allegedly deviated from the agreed procedure: Ultimately, the court dismissed the action against the defendants upon determining that the plaintiff failed to make out his claims. The BC Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant doctor breached the standard of care for a reasonably skilled maxillofacial surgery specialist by performing a straight advancement of the jaws with a GTA to treat OSA. The court found no evidence of a specific contract on the use of a counterclockwise movement in executing the MMA. The BC Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant doctor breached the relevant standard of care for surgical planning and execution by utilizing 2D planning models and stents. The court saw no evidence that the doctor represented that he would use virtual 3D modelling in planning or executing the surgery. According to the BC Supreme Court, the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant doctor failed to obtain his informed consent for the MMA or the GTA, given the treatment’s known risks at the time. The court determined that the doctor performed the surgery as discussed and agreed, rather than a different treatment, as the plaintiff alleged. Based on its factual findings, the court rejected the plaintiff’s battery claim. The BC Supreme Court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim. The court explained that the plaintiff opted to proceed with treatment under the defendant doctor based on timing and cost considerations, not due to the doctor’s representations regarding his experience. The BC Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the successful surgery performed by the defendant doctor caused or worsened the plaintiff’s sleep interruptions, fatigue, headaches, slight cognitive impairment, or any other injuries. The court pointed out that the plaintiff’s OSA symptoms preceded the procedure. The court added that the plaintiff did not call any witnesses to explain the significance of the voluminous clinical records tendered. Lastly, the BC Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff had three more surgical procedures that could have affected his pre-existing condition. Here are some other recent decisions involving medical professionals in the province. Following the summary dismissal of a former doctor and lawyer’s civil fraud and negligence claims against his treating physicians, the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued an Aug. 28 decision allowing his applications for an extension of time to appeal and a no fees order. On Aug. 21, the BC Supreme Court dismissed a claim alleging battery, fals