Martina is a medical doctor in rural Ontario. She sees patients in her office, but she also works shifts in the emergency room at the local hospital. Last Wednesday, while working in the emergency room, Martina saw a woman who was rushed in by ambulance with complaints of severe dizziness, confusion, and loss of speech. Martina thoroughly examined her and ran a number of common tests. The results were inconclusive. Worried about her patient, Martina referred her to a neurologist, David, who examined her. David was perplexed, and he consulted with a colleague, an experienced neurosurgeon. They agreed that the best course of action - and the one that is dictated by medical protocols written by experienced practitioners - was to send her to have an MRI, a medical imaging technique that uses a magnetic field and computer-generated radio waves to create detailed images of the brain. They wanted to see if there was any sign of blocked arteries (which carry oxygen to the brain), or if there was any tumor or any other reason why the patient would be suffering from these symptoms. They wanted to rule-out anything serious. The results of the MRI came back clear - Svetlana, the radiologist who read and reported on the MRI exam following well-established protocols said that there was nothing showing which would cause these symptoms. Unfortunately, the patient's symptoms persisted. Six months later, she has another MRI and it turns out she has a large brain tumor. Upon reviewing the initial MRI, it becomes clear that there was - at that time - a very small tumor that has since grown. Even though Svetlana the radiologist had followed all proper protocols, she simply did not see the small tumor. Had it been discovered then, the neurosurgeon likely could have operated, but now, it is too large and it is too late. There is no treatment available.

1. Briefly analyze this in the context of the second element of negligence we have studied, and state whether you believe the patient will succeed in proving this second element in relation to David, and why / why not. (3 marks)