Can I sue a doctor or hospital for medical negligence in Trinidad and Tobago?

The standard of care

The courts in Trinidad and Tobago judge medical treatment by the Bolam test. As the Privy Council put it in an appeal from Trinidad and Tobago, “a practitioner is not negligent if he acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion ‘merely because there is a body of opinion which would take a contrary view’” (Gulf View Medical Centre Ltd v Tesheira [2022] UKPC 38 [86]). The Privy Council has applied this standard in other recent appeals from Trinidad and Tobago (Low v Lezama [2022] UKPC 15; Singh v Persad [2026] UKPC 1 [16]).

The test has a limit. The House of Lords held in Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority that the Court is not bound to excuse a doctor merely because experts say the treatment was acceptable: the body of opinion relied on must have a logical basis. House of Lords decisions are persuasive, not binding, in Trinidad and Tobago.

Warning about risks and consent

In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that a doctor “is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks” involved in recommended treatment, and of reasonable alternatives. A risk is material if “a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk”, or if the doctor knows or should know that the particular patient would (at [87]). United Kingdom Supreme Court decisions are persuasive, not binding, in Trinidad and Tobago.

Proving that the negligence caused the injury

Showing that the care fell below the proper standard is not enough. The patient must also prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the failure caused the injury or death complained of (the approach applied in Low v Lezama). Both points are normally proved by independent medical expert evidence. In Balwah v Abdulla [2026] UKPC 31, a birth-injury claim, the Privy Council set aside a Court of Appeal judgment against the doctor who delivered the child and restored the trial judge’s dismissal of the claim. The main reason was that the Court of Appeal should not have replaced the trial judge’s finding of fact about when the doctor arrived ([40]–[50]). The Board added that causation could only be established by reference to a breach of duty actually found at trial, and the breaches found had not been shown to have caused the child’s injury ([20]–[21], [51]–[55]).

Who to sue

Can I sue a public hospital?

Public hospitals and health centres are run by the five Regional Health Authorities: the North-West, North-Central, South-West, Eastern and Tobago Regional Health Authorities. Each is a body corporate that “may sue and be sued in its corporate name”, and damages awarded against it are paid out of its funds (Regional Health Authorities Act (Chapter 29:05), ss 4, 8, First Schedule). The Act does not require a patient to give notice before suing an Authority.

Private doctors and hospitals

A private doctor, and a private hospital, can each be sued for their own failings. Whether a private hospital is responsible for a consultant whom the patient engaged privately and whom the hospital does not employ depends on the facts. In Singh v Persad the consultant was engaged privately by the patient and was not employed by the hospital; the Board treated the case as one in which the hospital was not vicariously liable for him, and assessed the conduct of each separately ([2]). In Gulf View the hospital had admitted a duty that extended to doctors it did not employ ([2], [55]–[67]).

Time limits

A claim for damages for personal injury, including medical negligence, must be filed within 4 years from the date the cause of action accrued or the date the injured person first acquired knowledge of it, which turns on when they first became aware of facts such as that the injury was significant, that it was attributable to the act or omission complained of, or who the defendant was (Limitation of Certain Actions Act (Chapter 7:09), ss 5, 7). The Court has power to direct that the 4-year limit does not apply, weighing the prejudice to each side, but it has a discretion and may refuse (s 9). The rules are explained on the page on personal injury time limits. If the injured person was a child when the cause of action accrued, the claim may be brought within 4 years from their 18th birthday (ss 2(3), 11; Age of Majority Act (Chapter 46:06), ss 2, 6). There is no shorter period for claims against a Regional Health Authority, the State or a private doctor. The same Act repealed the Public Authorities Protection Act and section 27 of the Medical Board Act, which had required an action against a doctor for negligence or malpractice to be commenced within one year after the professional services ended (Limitation of Certain Actions Act, s 22, Schedule II).