13. Name of Case: Roy Lawrence Caesar (Legal Personal Representative and Administrator the Estate of Esla Elsa Caesar) v South West Regional Health
Authority HC 3462/2008

Type of Medical Negligence:     Unsatisfactory Postoperative Care
Date of Judgment:                         19th March, 2014
Judge Presiding:                            The Honourable Mr. Justice Frank Seepersad


The Claimants who are the father and Legal Personal Representative of Elsa Caesar (deceased) and the sister of the deceased and next friend of the deceased’s minor child, claimed damages under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Chapter 4:01 and the Compensation for Injuries Act Chapter 8:05 for consequential loss due to the negligence by the Defendant, it’s servants and/or agents which resulted in the death of the deceased.

The deceased had an operation for brain surgery and had her tumor removed. However, she died four days after the operation from Broncho- Pneumonia. According to the father of the deceased, the deceased contracted broncho-pneumonia and developed gangrene while in the care of the Defendant who he alleges were negligent in the postoperative care of his daughter in allowing her to contract and develop these diseases. The father of the deceased alleged that when his daughter developed these conditions in particular the pneumonia she was not effectively treated and this caused her death.


The Claimants failed to lead the required evidence to support a case of negligence against the Defendant. The Court is therefore unable to identify the factors that led to the demise of the deceased and there is no evidence before the Court upon which the Court could hold on a balance of probabilities that the Defendant was in fact negligent and that the deceased died as a result of that negligence. Accordingly the Claimants’ case has to be and is hereby dismissed.

However having considered the history of this matter, the lack of assistance and information from the Defendant including its failure to file witness statements, the Court in the exercise of its discretion makes no order for costs and the Claimants’ case is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *