Piwonski v Knight No. Scciv-00-151

In Piwonski v Knight, the plaintiff, Mr. Piwonski, brought a claim against the defendant, Dr. Knight, a heart surgeon, alleging that Dr. Knight failed to properly advise him of the risks involved in an aortic valve replacement operation, or performed it negligently, resulting in Mr. Piwonski suffering a stroke. The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that Mr. Piwonski was adequately warned of the risks and that no shortcoming in the surgical techniques was made out. On appeal, Mr. Piwonski focused solely on the issue of whether the trial judge should have accepted Dr. Knight's evidence about the "suture placement theory," claiming that it was inconsistent with the objective evidence, including descriptions of the actual operation by Dr. Knight himself.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge should have found that the suture placement document was a recent invention, and whether the judge should have rejected Dr. Knight's evidence about the predicament and the placement of sutures through calcified tissue. The court found that the submissions made by Ms. Powell, counsel for Mr. Piwonski, did not provide a basis upon which this court could or should set aside the judge's finding. The matters relied upon by Ms. Powell did not compel the conclusion that the suture placement document was a recent invention or that Dr. Knight's evidence about the predicament and suture placement was false. The court was not persuaded by Ms. Powell's submissions, and it was open to the judge to accept the evidence of Dr. Knight about the course of the operation.

The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, as the evidence pointed to the contrary conclusion that Mr. Piwonski was adequately warned of the risks and that no shortcoming in the surgical techniques was made out. The outcome of the procedure had been disastrous for Mr. Piwonski, but the evidence did not support his claim that his treatment was inadequate.