The criminal law has been critiqued as an unsuitable system to regulate adverse medical events (AME) because the unintentional nature of AME renders it incompatible with the penal objectives of the criminal law. This project uses an interpretivist approach to examine how blameworthiness is constructed in criminal cases involving AME. Situated within a contextual constructionist paradigm, and utilizing a theoretical framework that draws on legal pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, Habermasian thought, and Goffmanian frame analysis, this project employs a case study approach to explore how appellate courts construct AME as a product of fate or agency. The British case of Bawa-Garba v. R. (2016) and the Canadian case of R. v. Javanmardi (2019) are analysed using thematic analysis. It is concluded that the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Javanmardi constructed the AME within the realm of fate, contrasting the minority in Javanmardi and full panel of the England and Wales Court of Appeal in Bawa-Garba which constructed the AME within the realm of agency. It is also concluded that the majority in Javanmardi utilised pragmatic adjudication to determine blameworthiness. It is suggested that these findings could reduce fear of criminal liability among Canadian health care professionals. Future research is suggested to examine the legal cultures underlying this variation, critically explore the intersection of race and criminal prosecution of AME, and apply structural violence as a theoretical frame to further interrogate AME as a systemic failure.