Complication, Medical Misadventure, or Negligence? Can I sue?
When something goes wrong in a hospital or clinic, families often hear labels like “complication,” “adverse event,” or “medical misadventure.”
In Alberta, only two categories are generally actionable in tort (i.e., can lead to compensation): negligence and battery. By contrast, a complication or what we can call a “medical misadventure”1 (a reasonable but incorrect diagnosis or decision that, unfortunately, results in harm) are not actionable by themselves.
What do these terms mean?
Complication — A recognized risk that can occur even when care is reasonable. It becomes actionable only if the risk wasn’t properly disclosed (informed‑consent negligence) or if care fell below the standard and caused the harm (negligence).
Medical Misadventure—A reasonable but incorrect diagnosis or treatment decision that results in harm. Because the decision was within the range of acceptable practice at the time, no breach is proven; therefore, it is not actionable on its own.
Negligence—Substandard care that causes or substantially contributes to harm. You may sue for negligence.
Battery—No consent at all, or treatment beyond the scope of consent (absent an emergency). This is actionable in tort even if the technique was otherwise competent.
1) Complication
A complication is a known risk of a procedure or treatment that sometimes happens despite reasonable care. For example, a postoperative infection despite proper sterile technique, or transient nerve irritation after an injection performed according to standard protocols. Standing alone, a bad outcome does not prove negligence.
Two follow-up questions determine whether a complication might become an actionable claim:
- Was consent truly informed?
Providers must disclose material risks, reasonable alternatives, and likely outcomes a reasonable person in the patient’s position would want to know. If a serious risk wasn’t disclosed and then materialized, the claim may proceed - Was care reasonable at the time?
The standard of care is measured by what a prudent provider would have done given the information available at the time—not with hindsight. If the team skipped steps that peers would not have skipped, you may have negligence.
Complications occur—most are non-actionable; some reveal negligence in obtaining proper consent, and only a minority reveal substandard care.
2) Misadventure — A reasonable but wrong decision (not actionable)
By medical misadventure, here we mean: the clinician made a defensible, guideline-consistent choice that ultimately proved incorrect—for example:
- An Emergency Department team treats presumed gastroenteritis after a careful workup; appendicitis declares itself 12 hours later and is promptly managed.
- A surgeon reasonably selects conservative management first; the condition later requires surgery.
In each scenario, the decision fell within the range of acceptable practice. The fact that the outcome was poor, or the judgment turned out to be wrong, does not mean the standard was breached. Courts evaluate conduct by what was knowable at the time, not by the result.
Unfortunately, many adverse outcomes occur despite reasonable care. That is not actionable. It becomes actionable only if evidence shows the choice fell outside accepted practice or if there was a material non‑disclosure in consent.
3) Negligence — substandard care that causes harm (actionable)
To succeed in negligence, a plaintiff must prove all of the following:
- Duty of care (usually straightforward once a provider undertakes care).
- Breach of the standard of care — The provider fell below what a reasonably competent peer would have done in the circumstances. Custom/practice can inform the standard, but is not conclusive.
- Causation — The breach caused the injury on the balance of probabilities. The default test is “but for” the breach, the injury would not have occurred (narrow exceptions aside).
- Compensable damages — Pain and suffering (capped and indexed), income loss, care costs, out-of-pocket expenses, etc.
Consent negligence (failure to disclose material risks, alternatives, and likely outcomes) sits within negligence. Causation is assessed by asking whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have declined or chosen differently if properly informed.
4) Battery — no consent or beyond the scope of consent (actionable)
Battery applies where there is no consent at all, or the provider goes materially beyond the consent that was given, except in the case of a true, imminent emergency. Examples include:
- Administering a blood transfusion to a competent adult who expressly refused it.
- Continuing a procedure after the patient withdraws consent, where stopping would not endanger the patient.
- Performing a materially different procedure than authorized (e.g., adding sterilization during an unrelated operation without emergent necessity).
- The emergency exception is narrow: there must be a genuine, imminent threat, and the response must be limited to what’s immediately necessary.
If you or a loved one experiences a medical injury, clarity and preparation are key. Begin by gathering all relevant records, including chart notes, medication logs, operative reports, imaging studies, and consent forms, and create a clear timeline of events.
Before taking action, understand your goal: regulatory complaints focus on professional standards and system improvement, not financial compensation. If compensation is your objective, a civil claim is required, and strict deadlines apply—typically two years from the date of discovery in Alberta, with a 10-year ultimate limitation for those of the age of majority.
These distinctions matter because not every adverse outcome is negligence. Some result from reasonable but incorrect judgments, which are not legal causes of action. Negligence and battery claims hinge on what was knowable and reasonable at the time, whether risks were disclosed, and whether any shortfall caused harm.
If you’re unsure where your situation fits, seek tailored legal advice early—deadlines matter, and accurate labelling helps both your case and the healthcare system improve patient safety while not discouraging clinicians from exercising sound clinical judgement.
