Facts
The case concerns an osteopath who was charged with negligent serious bodily harm and failure to provide emergency assistance. On December 23, 2014, the respondent 2 had visited the appellant's ([A.] ) practice for an osteopathic treatment. This resulted in a dissection of the vertebral artery, leading to an ischemic stroke in respondent 2. [A.] is accused of having performed rapid and forceful manipulations and rotational movements in the neck, shoulder and head area during the treatment, which led to the "embolization of a thrombus" and subsequently to the stroke. Furthermore, [A.] is said to have failed to call for medical assistance, although respondent 2 was in mortal danger.
Considerations
The Federal Court upholds the conviction of the appellant for negligent serious bodily harm and failure to provide emergency assistance. Regarding the negligent serious bodily harm, the Federal Court considers that the appellant, due to his lack of professional competence, was unable to properly assess the symptoms of respondent 2 and recognize the risk of a stroke. Therefore, he was unable to abort the treatment and initiate the necessary medical examinations. The Federal Court affirms a fault in taking on the case, as the appellant had carried out the treatment despite inadequate training.
Regarding the failure to provide emergency assistance, the…