Judge throws out medical negligence lawsuit on first day of trial

A High Court judge dismissed a daughter’s medical negligence lawsuit against her mother’s former employer, the North Central Regional Health Authority (NCRHA) and the Attorney General on the first day of the hearing.

Three days had been set aside for Afeisha Hutson’s, daughter of the late Treverlene Hutson, lawsuit which sought compensation and declarations for her mother’s death in 2019.

Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed the lawsuit on January 7, saying the evidence did not support the claims against National Canners Ltd (NCL), the NCRHA and the AG after hearing testimony from the Hutsons and their witnesses.

Treverlene Hutson, a 48-year-old NCL employee, fell ill at work in June 2019, vomiting green substances and experiencing chest pains. She died hours later at the Arima Hospital, reportedly from a pulmonary embolism. Her daughter’s claim alleged negligence on the part of NCL but this was later withdrawn, the NCRHA for tardy medical treatment, and the police for a flawed investigation into her death.

Seepersad said after hearing evidence from the daughter, husband and a co-worker whose sister also fell ill on the job but survived. Three doctors, who treated Hutson, were expected to testify for the NCRHA on Wednesday. Seepersad said he considered the relevant law on duty of care and employers’ liability.

He said from the evidence when Hutson fell ill, she elected not to seek medical advice or call a family member until later in the day.

“What is also clear on the evidence is that the first defendant company provided transport to the deceased when there was a conversation with her husband and the supervisor, and took her to the hospital…”

He said it was clear that NCL had a system in place to handle medical emergencies.

“No evidence before this court is adduced by the claimant to suggest that the first defendant in any way failed to discharge its obligations towards its employee in such a manner to breach the duty of care which an employer has insofar as it is required to provide reasonable care for the safety and welfare of an employee.

“As it relates to the second defendant, medical negligence cases require positive evidence that can assist the court in arriving at a finding on a balance of probabilities that there was a failure to meet the requisite standard of care, that a process was engaged which was arbitrary or failed to adhere to the accepted medical standard.

“Unfortunately for the claimant, she was unable to adduce any medical evidence and call any witness to suggest that the treatment meted out to the deceased, in some way, failed to adhere to the accepted industry standards as to how to treat with someone with a pulmonary embolism.”

Seepersad said the medical reports submitted by the NCRHA and pathologist Dr Hubert Daisley, who did a second private autopsy for the family, concluded that the cause of Hutson’s death “was the embolism. “

“And there is nothing to suggest when one looks at the timeline of events and the treatment that was meted out to the deceased that the doctors failed to follow any proper protocol or procedure, misdiagnosed the scenario in any way, and it is because of poor medical treatment that her death occurred.”

Seepersad expressed empathy for the family, acknowledging the sudden loss of a viable 48-year-old woman. However, he stressed the importance of supporting evidence in pursuing legal claims. “Outcomes have to be driven by evidence,” he stated, noting the absence of toxicology results and credible proof of negligence.

“The claimant simply lacked the requisite evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the North Central Regional Health Authority was in any way negligent, failed to adhere to the requisite medical standards of treatment, and or breached their obligation.

“In relation to the third defendant, the Attorney General, it is clear that the police officers acted when a report was made. There are the entries in the station diary.

“It cannot be said in the circumstances, that the police in any way failed to investigate the report which was made, or that they overlooked important aspects of the evidence…

“ The deceased died rather unexpectedly, but there is nothing to suggest that culpability should lie with any of the defendants who have been brought before this court.

“This case against all three defendants is hereby dismissed.”

In the claim, the Hutson family sought $78,060 in special damages, along with general, aggravated, and exemplary damages for alleged negligence. “

Seepersad ordered the family to pay $14,000 in costs but said it was entirely up to the defendants to determine whether they are going to enforce it.

He said care and caution must be exercised before litigation is initiated

Attorney Shalini Sankar represented the Hutson family. Catherine Ramnarine represented NCL while Sushma Gopeesingh and Emily Constantine represented the NCRHA. Ronelle Hinds and Lianne Thomas represented the AG.