Dental Negligence Claims

A young girl is to receive compensation for permanent scarring to her back due to events that happened shortly after her birth, while the hospital still denies liability for her injuries.

In October 2012, Ann Ryan gave birth to a daughter at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin. She was just twenty-five weeks into her pregnancy, and the baby girl was born at just 840 grams. Due to her small birth weight, the baby-named Sophia-was transferred to the Special Care Unit to receive specialist attention. Medical staff inserted various catheters to administer drugs and help with her feeding.

As she was at risk of skin sepsis, the areas where the catheters were inserted were cleaned with chlorhexidine. This was used instead of the regular povidone-iodine, as part of the National Children´s Research Centre´s “SKA trial”. Before Sophia’s birth, Ann agreed for Sophia to participate in this trial on the grounds that her child would not experience any discomfort or side effects.

However, the day after chrlohexidine was applied to the area at risk of sepsis,  hospital staff noticed a large area of redness and a small area of ulceration on Sophia´s back. She underwent immediate medical examination, and the redness was diagnosed as being an adverse reaction to the chlorhexidine.  Sophia was displaying signs of distress and discomfort due to the adverse reaction. Morphine was administered intravenously in an attempt to relieve her pain.

Sophia was administered Fucidim-a cream used to prevent bacterial skin infections-when she was only two days old. This resulted in Sophia suffering a deep dermal skin burn. The Fucidim treatment was discontinued the following day and an alternate cream administered – Duoderm.  The burn marks on Sophia’s skin did not disappear despite further treatment. In May 2014, her mother brought her to the hospital´s consultant paediatric dermatologist. The mark on Sophia’s skin was diagnosed as a scar consistent with a chemical burn. She and her husband sought legal counsel to claim compensation for their daughter’s injury.

On behalf of his daughter, Tom Ryan, claimed compensation for an adverse reaction to antisepsis, alleging that the National Maternity Hospital had been negligent in her treatment. It was due to the hospital´s negligence the affected skin will be permanently discoloured and that she will likely require a skin graft in the future.

The defendants denied liability for Sohpia’s scar. In spite of this denial of liability, the hospital offered to settle the claim for €100,000. As the claim for compensation for an adverse reaction to antisepsis had been made on behalf of a child, the proposed settlement first had to be approved by a judge. The case was brought to the High Court in Dublin and was heard by Mr Justice Richard Humphries.

The judge was told the details of Sophia´s treatment after her premature birth. After hearing that Sophia spent 135 days in hospital after her birth, but has suffered no developmental delays due to her experience, the judge approved the settlement of compensation for an adverse reaction to antisepsis plus costs. The settlement will now be paid into an interest-yielding court fund until Sophia reaches the age of eighteen.

A teenage girl has won compensation from the HSE for an incorrect diagnosis of her hearing impediment, which resulted in her hearing deteriorating before she was tested for a second time.

In April 2006, when Clodagh Enright was only four years of age, when her mother Eileen noticed that she was experiencing difficulty speaking. Concerned for her daughter, she sought medical advice. She contacted the local health nurse responsible for speech and language. The nurse referred Clodagh to the audiology department of her local hospital to have her hearing checked.

The initial hearing test could not find any issues with Clodagh’s hearing. As her daughter was still experiencing difficulties, Eileen Enright persisted with her concerns. A second hearing test was arranged with different medical professionals in May 2007. This time, the test detected Clodagh had a significant hearing impediment.

Clodagh underwent a cochlear implant and had hearing aids fitted to help resolve the problem. Her parents claimed that, had the problem been identified in the first examination, Clodagh´s hearing impediment would not have deteriorated to such an extent before the second test was arranged.  Clodagh fell behind in her education due to her impediment, which her parents say was entirely avoidable.

On behalf of her daughter, Eileen made a claim for an avoidable deterioration of hearing against the Health Service Executive (HSE). An admission of liability was made by the HSE and a settlement of the claim negotiated amounting to €340,000.

As the claim for an avoidable deterioration of hearing had been made on behalf of a child, the proposed settlement had to be approved by a High Court judge before the claim could be resolved in order to ensure it was in the child’s best interests.

The case was heard in the High Court in Cork by Mr Justice Kevin Cross. The judge was told the circumstances of Clodagh´s injury and the progress she had made in the intervening years. The judge approved the settlement, saying it was a good one in the circumstances, and ordered that it be paid into court funds until Clodagh reaches the age of eighteen.

A woman has taken the HSE to the High Court over a claim that early diagnosis of her breast cancer were missed during the “Breast Check” screenings held in her local clinic.

On the 25th November 2011, Eileen-a retired schoolteacher from Piltown, Kilkenny-underwent a routine breast examination as part of “Breast Check”, the National Breast Screening Programme. According to the medical professionals performing the check, Eileen had a clean bill of health and discharged her without suggesting that she seek further medical attention.

A year after this examination, Eileen visited her GP after feeling unwell. During a medical examination, the GP discovered that Eileen had a large mass on her breast. She was then sent to Waterford Regional Hospital for further testing. An ultrasound and biopsy were performed, and the results of which confirmed the diagnosis of a Grade 2 carcinoma.

Eileen was put on a course of chemotherapy as soon as the diagnosis was made. In spite of the efforts of the medical professionals, the cancer could not be treated. In April 2013, Eileen had a mastectomy. After her recovery, Eileen sought legal counsel and proceeded to make a claim for her missed diagnosis.

In her claim, which was made against the Health Service Executive as the overseer of “Breast Check”, as the screening allegedly missed critical signs that Eileen was suffering from cancer. Eileen alleged that the treatment she underwent would not have been necessary had she been diagnosed with cancer a year earlier. However, the HSE denied that they were guilty of medical negligence.

Due to the contest of liability, the case proceeded to court. The case was heard at Dublin’s High Court by Mr Justice Kevin Cross. He informed of the details of the case by Eileen’s legal team, who argued that the first mammogram, taken in November 2011, should have alerted doctors that Eileen would need further examinations. The failure to conduct these, it was alleged, meant that Eileen was put in unnecessary danger of the cancer progressing.

Though Eileen had been declared cancer-free since the mastectomy, Judge Cross was told that her prognosis is “extremely serious and devastating”. The case will continue later this week.

A woman has been awarded compensation by the High Court for medical negligence surrounding her birth, which left her deprived of oxygen. She was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

Shortly before her birth in October 1999, at the Mayo General Hospital, Mary Malee was suffering from foetal distress syndrome. As a result, she was delivered by emergency Caesarean section. Despite the urgency of the situation, there was a delay of nearly eighty minutes in carrying out the procedure. No consultant was available to assist the delivery in spite of the early signs of foetal distress. Mary was deprived of oxygen in utero, resulting in her suffering from brain damage. After subsequent medical examinations, Mary was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. She is entirely dependant upon her wheelchair for mobility.

Maura Malee sought legal counsel to claim compensation for her daughter’s birth injuries. Acting on her daughter’s behalf, she made a claim for birth injuries compensation against Mayo General Hospital. In the claim, it is alleged by Maura that her daughter’s injuries were caused by the hospital’s lack of consultants, and their inability to source one upon the diagnosis of an elevated foetal heart rate. She further claimed that delay in having a Caesarean section caused by this negligence lead to Mary’s brain damage.

The case was heard at the High Court at the beginning of 2014 by Ms Justice Mary Irvine. The judge approved an interim settlement of compensation worth €1.5 million. She then adjourned the case for two years such that a payment scheme could be established so the family could receive regular payments in the place of a lump sum.Yet no scheme was ever introduced and as such the Mary and her parents returned to the High Court last week for the approval of final settlement of €5.56 million.

At the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly oversaw proceedings. A representative of Mayo General Hospital read an official statement which apologised to Mary for the “the many challenges that you have faced as a result of the treatment provided to your mother Maura at the time of your birth”. Judge Kelly then approved the compensation settlement, commending Mary’s heroism in facing the challenges her injuries present.

Mary, speaking to a reporter after the approval of the settlement, commented that “Cerebral palsy won’t kill me but I have to learn to live with it … it’s for life. This shouldn’t have happened to me and others like me. Justice has been done and I’m bringing closure to this, we can move on with our lives”.

The High Court of Dublin has awarded a settlement of compensation to a woman whose undiagnosed cerebral subarachnoid haemorrhage left her severely brain damaged.

In June 2006, Paula Dundon, of Co. Kildare, attended Naas General Hospital after complaining of headaches, nausea and vomiting. Before the forty-two year-old mother of three was admitted to the hospital, she was given painkillers and had a CT scan performed on her brain.

The CT scan results failed to reveal anything wrong with Paula. However, Paula’s symptoms continued and worsened. Concerned, doctors carried out a second scan a few days later which revealed a large intra-cerebral bleed on the left side of Paula’s brain. She was then transferred to Beaumont Hospital to receive specialist treatment.

Paula underwent further medical examination by doctors at Beaumont Hospital. Paula’s injury was diagnosed as an intra-cerebral subarachnoid haemorrhage. However, the delay in the diagnosis at Naas Hospital meant that Paula suffered extreme brain damage. She is now reliant on 24 hour care by her family and carers.

Paula’s husband, Michael, sought legal counsel and on his wife’s behalf made a claim for compensation for an undiagnosed intra-cerebral subarachnoid haemorrhage. He alleged that the delay in diagnosing his wife’s injuries would have been avoided had the original scan resulted in a correct diagnosis of her condition.

The HSE disputed part of the claim for medical negligence, saying that they had adequately assessed Paula’s injury and the medical staff did the best that they could in the circumstances. However, they admitted that the diagnosis was not made within an adequate timeframe, and that her injuries were a result of the delay.

A €2.7 million settlement of compensation was negotiated between the parties. However, as Paula was not able to represent herself and only made the claim through her husband, the case needed to be heard in the High Court. Mr Justice Kevin Cross heard the details of the case before approving the settlement. Judge Cross also congratulated Paula’s husband on the care he had given his wife over the past decade.

A man has been left in a coma since 2011 following hospital staff’s failure to adequately diagnose and treat his sepsis following an operation.

In 2011, Robert Bolton was admitted to hospital to have an operation on his oesophagus. The procedure on his oesophagus being determined a success, but Robert was kept hospital overnight under observation. The next morning, the seventy-one year-old retiree had a heart attack because of respiratory failure.

Robert’s condition continued to rapidly deteriorate in spite of being moved to the intensive care unit of the hospital. He was diagnosed with suffering from sepsis. As a consequence of this, Robert suffered from a hypoxic ischaemic brain injury. He was left in a comatose state, and has been since 2011. Robert has only had a few occasions of minimal consciousness.

Robert’s wife, Angela, sought legal counsel on behalf of her husband. She was concerned the care her husband received during and after his operation, as well as during his stay in the intensive care unit at the hospital. She proceeded to make a claim against the hospital for their failure to diagnose her husband’s organ failure. The claim alleged that medical staff did not adequately diagnose Robert’s sepsis or adhere to the criteria of systemic inflammatory response.

Despite an admittance for partial liability regarding the substandard level of care Robert received at the facility, the hospital denied that Robert’s condition was entirely due to their own negligence. The case was scheduled to be heard in court. As the claim was being made on behalf of someone unable to represent themselves in court, the settlement had to be approved by the High Court.

Negotiations ensued between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which lead to the determination of an interim settlement of compensation amounting to €550,000. Experts judged that this sum would pay for two years’ worth of the specialist care Robert now requires.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross oversaw proceedings at the High Court in Dublin. The judge heard of how the hospital’s alleged failings lead to the deterioration of Robert’s condition and how his comatose state has impacted his family.

Angela also read a statement to the court, in which she assured Judge Cross that no amount of money would compensate for what happened to her husband. However, she added the it would act as a reassurance that he was getting adequate care. The judge approved the settlement before commenting that it was the result of hard bargaining. He finished by wishing Angela and her family the best for the future.

The case of a man who had his larynx removed as a treatment of his throat cancer will be heard in the High Court, as he claims that no alternative treatment methods were properly discussed with him.

In July 2010, Kevin McMahon, then aged fifty-eight, sought medical attention from his General Practitioner’s after suffering from a sore throat. After initial medical investigation, he was referred to the Mid-Western Regional Hospital to receive specialist attention. There, Kevin-originally from Roxboro, Co. Limerick, had doctors examined his throat. They noticed a lesion and proceeded to take a biopsy.

After initial concerns that Kevin could have cancer, an appointment was made for that October to have a second biopsy of the lesion. However, that appointment was cancelled, and another one was not rescheduled until January 2011.

After the second biopsy was performed that January, Mr McMahon was diagnosed with cancer. He was informed that his case was urgent, and that he required immediate fourteen-hour operation to remove his larynx. Following the operation, he was rendered only able to communicate through an artificial voice box.

However, after the procedure to remove his larynx, Mr McMahon discovered that targeted radiotherapy was an alternative method of successfully treating the cancer. He sought legal counsel before proceeding to make a claim against the Mid-Western Regional Hospital and Health Service Executive for inappropriate treatment of his cancer.

The claim alleged that the medical professional who had diagnosed him with cancer failed to have open discussion with him concerning possible treatment. As such, the decision to undergo the operation that removed his larynx was made without adequate informed consent. He also claimed that the delay in having the second appointment, in which he was finally diagnosed with cancer and treatment started to be offered, allowed the cancer to develop further and cause preventable damage. This avoidable delay caused him emotional trauma.

Initially, the defendants-the HSE-denied any liability in Mr McMahon’s injuries. However, just before the claim was scheduled to be heard in Dublin’s High Court, they finally admitted liability. The hearing proceeded as planned, but Mr Justice Kevin Cross will now be asked to assess the value of the compensation settlement Mr McMahon is to receive. The case is still ongoing.

The Irish Examiner have published an Opinion-Editorial Published has claimed that the open disclosure policy created for the Health Service Executive is unlikely to be applied nationwide in the foreseeable future.

The open disclosure policy dictates when the HSE should tell families when there are issues with the standard of healthcare provided to patients. The policy was created in November 2013, but still is largely not adhered to by hospitals. The open editorial-written by Catherine Shanahan-claimed that the policy is good on paper, but is very unlikely to be thoroughly enforced nationwide.

Shanahan used wrote about seven cases of medical negligence in detail to highlight her point. These cases occurred in 2015 and, and were widely covered by the media. According to Shanahan, they demonstrate how the HSE is frequently does not admit to negligence and denies liability for the injuries of those in its care. Therefore, patients and their families are forced to seek legal counsel and bring their cases to court if they want to learn the true story of the events they endured.

On of the cases in the open-editorial piece was that of Gil Russell. The case gained public attention because of the action with the Sates Claim Agency. She was born in 2006 with cerebral palsy because of negligence surrounding her birth. Her delivery was described as a “prolonged and totally chaotic”, and left her deprived of oxygen in utero. The HSE only issued an apology in 2012, six years after the incident occurred. At the same time, an interim settlement of compensation was awarded.

The Russell family were back in the High Court in 2014, after a final settlement of compensation was negotiated. They were awarded a €13.5 million lump settlement, which was the largest ever awarded by the state for cerebral palsy. The State Claims Agency then made an attempt to appeal the settlement, though the case was later rejected. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court, which depriving Gill and her family of the settlement and financial support which they needed.

Other cases mentioned in the editorial included Skye Worthington and Katie Manton. Both of these cases had involved a similar negligence claim to Gill Russell, and their injuries were sustained in similar circumstances. Furthermore, like Gill, both waited for years to receive an apology from the Health Service Executive for their mismanaged births.

The article makes a clear case for the claim that the policy is not being applied in Irish hospitals, and that the money put towards public and doctor education concerning the policy was a waste of government funds.

The HSE has admitted liability for the wrongful death of a newborn boy after an independent investigation found that medical staff at the Cavan General Hospital were guilty of several counts of medical negligence.

In November 2012, Fiona Watters was pregnant with her first baby. She she was admitted to the Cavan General Hospital on the 20th of that month after feeling a series of regular contractions. Her waters broke nearly two days later. In order to assist Fiona with labour, medical staff administered Prostaglandin, a commonly used drug.

Initially, the drug failed to assist Fiona. Therefore, as the day progressed, she was given higher and higher doses of the drug. That evening, an attempt was made at a natural delivery. After an hour of trying, the baby was no closer to being born. Concerned about the difficult birth, the midwives at the facility called Fiona’s consultant obstetrician, Dr Salah Aziz. They informed him that the baby was not yet visible. Furthermore, after a series of scans were taken there were indicators that the baby was suffering foetal distress.

When Mr Aziz arrived at the labour ward in the hospital, he discovered that another Caesarean Section was being carried out in the only out-of-hours theatre and therefore emergency surgery could not be performed on Fiona. He tried both a forceps and vacuum delivery to no avail. When the operating theatre eventually became available, Mr Aziz performed an emergency Caesarean section on Fiona. Her baby, names Jamie, was delivered shortly after, yet he was in very poor condition.

The baby was quickly transferred to a special care unit in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, for specialist treatment. In spite of the best attempts of medical staff, he died just two days later in his mother’s arms. An investigation ensued looking into the circumstances of Jamie’s death. This initial investigation was stopped by the High Court in 2013 when Dr Aziz pointed out that the investigators appointed by the HSE were not following proper procedures for investigating the case.

Ms Watters and her partner, Francis Flynn, had received an advanced copy of the report and sought legal counsel. After this, they proceeded to make a claim for medical negligence compensation against the Cavan General Hospital and the HSE.

The defendants denied all liability for Jamie’s death for a year after the claim was made. They ordered another investigation to be carried out to attribute liability. This team was composed of an independent review team, as there were two more deaths of children at the Cavan General Hospital since Jamie’s birth.

In December 2014, it was determined that Jamie’s death was caused by medical misadventure. The increasingly large doses of Prostaglandin, Dr Aziz’s failure to notify the registrar of Jamie’s imminent birth and the fact that there was only one out-of-hours theatre at the hospital were all listed to be contributing factors.

The State Claims Agency and Jamie’s parent’s legal teams began negotiations in order for the claim of compensation to be settled. Due to the trauma sustained by Jamie’s parents, a package of €70,000 was agreed upon. The case was heard in the High Court in Dublin by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, who approved the settlement.

The family of a man who died in hospital due to his meningitis being misdiagnosed by medical staff attending him have been awarded compensation for his wrongful death.

In May 2010, Philip Morrissey, aged thirty-nine, visited his GP to seek medical attention for a high temperature, a headache and a pain in his ear. After an initial medical check, the doctor referred him to the Accident and Emergency Department of Kilkenny’s St Luke’s Hospital. He was admitted to the hospital suffering from the aforementioned conditions, but also with a high pulse and an increasing intolerance to light.

Mrs Gail Morrissey raised her concerns with the attending staff that her husband was drowsy and disoriented several hours after he was initially admitted to the hospital. The staff informed her that her husband was suffering from constipation, and that she need not be concerned.

However,  Mr Morrissey was found dead in his room the morning after being admitted to hospital. A post-mortem revealed that he had suffered a cardiac arrest during the night. The heart attack was later attributed to him suffering from streptococcal pneumonia meningitis. The symptoms he had been suffering the day before are in line with what would be expected in an individual suffering from this ailment.

Mrs Morrissey sought legal counsel, and proceeded to make a claim against the HSE for her husband’s misdiagnosis. In her claim, she stated that no doctor had attended to her husband since the late afternoon before his death, and that the staff that had seen him earlier on did not accurately diagnose his condition, failing to consider that his symptoms were indicative of meningitis.

An investigation was launched to assess the circumstances of Mr Morrissey’s death ensued. After the results were published, the HSE admitted liability. The two legal teams began to negotiate a compensation settlement. A figure of €455,000 was agreed upon by the parties, though due to the nature of Mr Morrissey’s death, the case had to proceed to the High Court before the settlement could be awarded.

The case was heard in the High Court by Mr Justice Michael Hanna. The judge was presented with details of Mr Morrissey’s illness and subsequent death. A statement was read to the Morrissey family by a representative of the HSE, apologising for his wrongful death. Judge Hanna proceeded to approve the compensation settlement, adding that it was a “huge tragedy” for the family, and while the settlement would never be a compensation for Mr Morrissey’s loss, it was the best that could be achieved by the law.

The case of a woman who suffered a wrongful death due to a missed diagnosis of organ failure will be brought to the courts as her family seeks compensation.

In July 2013, Susan McGee, aged fifty-two was admitted to the Hermitage Medical Clinic for a routine operation to treat a hernia. The surgery was initially deemed successful and Susan was discharged from hospital a few days later. Susan, originally from Rush, Co. Dublin, left hospital to return to the care of one of her two children.  

The day after she was discharged with a clean bill of health, Susan began to  experience pains in her abdomen and was generally feeling unwell. Concerned for her mother’s wellbeing, her daughter brought her back to the Hermitage. Susan was admitted for observation by medical staff. A CAT scan conducted shortly after she was admitted.  The results of the scan revealed that Susan had a small mass in her bowel.

Susan immediately underwent emergency surgery to remove the mass. In spite of this treatment, Susan’s condition continued to deteriorate rapidly. The next day, she was transferred to an intensive care unit in Beaumont Hospital for specialist treatment. In spite of the care that she received, she died a day later from multiple organ failure and sepsis. Later investigation revealed that the sepsis was a result of a Clostridium difficile infection. 

In June 2015, an inquest was carried out into Susan’s death by independent medical professionals. The Dublin City Coroner’s Court heard evidence of many errors made in Susan’s treatment and care, including a failure by medical staff to act on brown faecal fluid that was emerging from Susan’s nasogastric tube. The staff at the hospital also neglected to record Susan’s vital signs between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm just three days before she died. 

Additional evidence as given that, on the 20th and 21st July, there was only one resident medical officer on duty who had eighty-one patients under his care at the time. The medical officer, Dr Lachman Pahwani, testified that he had tried to devote as much time as possible to Susan, as he knew of her weak condition, but that he was vastly overstretched by the number of patients in his care.

Susan’s family have since sought legal counsel, and are making a claim for her wrongful death due to medical misadventure, as this was the verdict delivered by the inquest. 

The value of settlements of compensation awarded to victims of personal injuries has increased by over a third between 2013 and 2014, rising from €227,000 to €304,000.

An analyst at Davy Stockbrokers, Emer Lang, was among the first to notice that there was an increase of nearly 34% in the number of compensation settlements awarded by the High Court in 2014. She noticed the increase while collecting data from the Courts Service Annual Report.

In 2014, a total of €155 million in compensation was given out in 509 personal injury claims. This worked out to be an average of €304,000 per claim. In compassion, the average claim was only €227,000 in 2013. This works out to be an increase of 34% between the two twelve month periods. However, in spite of the average value of a claim increasing massively, the average value for assessments that were conducted by the Injuries Board did not increase between the two years. It remained roughly constant, at €22,600.

Consultants from across the insurance industry have reported their shock at the new figures. An AA Ireland representative, Conor Faughnan, commented that the judges dealing with these claims needed to be trained to help them gain an understanding of how compensation really works. He claims that they perhaps don’t understand that the settlements of compensation that they award is ultimately paid for the country’s two million drivers by increasing insurance premiums.

However, others blamed recent changes to the Courts and Civil Law Act in 2013. The new legislation states that any case that was expected to settle for over €60,000 had to be heard in the High Court. Before the new act, a case was supposed to be expected to exceed €38,092 for the case to progress to the High Court. The Motor Insurance Advisory Board’s Founding Chairperson, Dorothea Dowling, claims that the plaintiffs are preferably using the High Court System, over the Injuries Board, in the hope of receiving more money.

“The Department of Justice was forewarned well in advance,” Ms Dowling told the Independent Newspaper. “This is what happens when you increase the limits of the lower courts – it sends out the message that €38,000 is small money.”

Mr Justice Bernard Barton-of the High Court-does not agree. Last year, he publicly criticised the government for not updating injury compensation values in the Book of Quantum (upon which the Injuries Board bases its assessments) since 2004.

Judge Barton commented in McGarry vs McGarry that “it is unquestionably in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the Book be reviewed and be kept updated to properly reflect [High Court compensation awards]”.

The High Court has awarded a settlement of compensation of €1.75 million to the family of a baby who was left severely disabled due to his mismanaged birth.

On the 6th September 1996, Thomas was born to Ann O’Connor at the Sligo General Hospital. As a CTG trace showed obvious indications of an elevated foetal heart rate, he was diagnosed with foetal distress in utero and his mother was scheduled to have an emergency Caesarean section. In spite of this intervention by medical staff, when he was not breathing when he was born. He was eventually resuscitated using a breathing tube, and was brought to intensive care. However, he suffered a heart attack while on the way to the intensive care unit.

Due to being starved of oxygen twice, Thomas suffered from severe brain damage. He became blind, and is unable to feed himself. He was later diagnosed as a spastic quadriplegic. He is reliant on 24 hour care, and lives in a residential care home in Sligo.

Ann O’Connor, on her son’s behalf, sought legal counsel. She then made the claim against the Sligo General Hospital. In the claim for birth negligence compensation, Ann alleges that the delivery of Thomas and his subsequent resuscitation was negligent. She states there were unnecessary delays of up to four hours in Thomas’ delivery. She also alleges that she was informed by an independent medical professional that the heart attack that Thomas suffered whilst on his way to the ICU was a direct result of medical staff inserting the resuscitation tube too deeply into Thomas’ throat. Therefore, the staff in charge of his birth were acting in a negligent fashion.

The allegations of birth injury negligence were denied by the Health Service Executives. They further disputed Ann’s claim for compensation. The case proceeded to the High Court of Dublin, where it was heard by Mr Justice Kevin Cross. Expert witnesses testified that the CTG trace which showed foetal distress had been discontinued the morning of Thomas’ delivery unnecessarily.  Additionally, they said that the resuscitation tube should have been inserted at a depth of 9-10 cm, but instead was put in at 14 cm. This was likely to be a direct cause of Thomas’s heart attack.

The judge was also informed that negotiations between the parties had determined that a settlement of €1.75 million was agreed between the parties, without an admission of liability by the HSE. Judge Cross approved the settlement, stating that the money will be used to pay for Thomas’ care in his residential home. He commented on his delight that the ordeal of claiming compensation was complete for Thomas’ family, and wished them well for the future.

The parents of a girl who was born with severe disabilities due to medical negligence have criticised the State Claims Agency for the insensitive manner in which they handled their daughter’s case.

In April 2005, Alex Butler was born at the Waterford Regional Hospital. Due to an avoidable 10 minute delay in her birth, she was born “blue and lifeless”. The doctor who was substituting for Alex’s mother’s regular obstetrician had failed to diagnose that there were complications in Alex’s birth and signs of foetal distress. As a result, Alex was starved of oxygen in the womb.

Her brain sustained severe and irreversible damage due to being deprived of oxygen. In spite of her injuries, Alex is described as possessing a “bright personality with a huge intelligence”. In addition to her brain damage, she is also tetraplegic and her mobility is dependant upon a wheelchair. She will need constant care and attention for the rest of her life. 

Her parents sought the advice of a solicitor to claim compensation for their daughter’s birth injuries.Acting on behalf of her daughter, Sonya Butler made a claim for Alex’s birth injuries against the Health Service Executive and Waterford Regional Hospital. The HSE acknowledged liability for Alex’s injuries, stating that the unnecessary delay in her birth was the cause of her injuries. Their legal representatives negotiated with the family to organise an interim settlement of compensation in 2013.  It was hoped that  structured settlement of periodic payments would be introduced by the government shortly after the interim settlement was made.

The case was adjourned for two years for such structured periodic payments to be created. However, the government has failed to create the required legislation for such a scheme. Therefore, a lump sum needed to be negotiated.  As the case involved a minor, it was brought to the High Court, where their case was overseen by Mr Justice Anthony Barr. 

An apology was read to the Butler family by a spokesperson representing Waterford Regional Hospital. As the hearing proceeded, the judge heard that the parties could not agree as to how much compensation Alex was entitled to due to her severity of disabilities, and her requirement of constant care and medical attention. 

The parties continued to negotiate the settlement for eighteen days after the initial hearing. A €9 million settlement of compensation was eventually agreed upon. The settlement was approved by Judge Barr in the High Court on Alex’s behalf. The judge commented that the settlement was both reasonable and fair. 

Speaking to the press after the hearing, Alex’s parents expressed their disdain with how the case was handled. Sonya criticising the State Claims Agency when speaking with reporters after the announcement of the settlement: “They fought tooth and nail. They basically want Alex to have an existence, not a life. They want her to scrape by with the bare minimum rather than her having the life that she should have had.”

A woman has received a six-figure settlement of compensation for inadequate neonatal care which left her suffering from depression and a bacterial infection.

In December 2012, Claire Lalor, from Swords in Co. Dublin, was admitted to the National Maternity Hospital to give birth to her baby. The birth proceeded without incident, and Claire was discharged three days later. In spite of the initial clean bill of health, Claire returned twice within the next two weeks to seek medical attention. She was experiencing pain in her lower abdomen and had a malodorous vagina. 

However, on neither visit resulted in Claire having an internal examination.  On her second, medical staff suspected that her symptoms may be due to a bacterial infection, and she was prescribed antibiotics. However, the smell became worse and Claire continued to experience severe pain in the region. In January she returned to the hospital and was eventually internally examined. Medical staff discovered that a vaginal swab had been left inside Claire after her labour, and was the cause of her pain. The swab was subsequently removed.

Claire continued to feel pain and discomfort even after the swab was removed. She returned to hospital later that January, when she was discharged after a diagnosis of post-natal depression. Claire’s condition began to grow worse, and she started to suffer from sweating, chills and diarrhoea. 

Claire attended Beaumont Hospital to seek further medical attention. After an initial medical investigation, she was diagnosed with a Clostridium difficile infection. It was determined that this was contracted as a result of the incorrect initial diagnosis of an infection. After her recovery, Claire sought legal counsel before making a claim for compensation because of the trauma and pain she suffered as a result of the swab being left inside her. 

National Maternity Hospital admitted liability for Claire’s physical injuries. However, they disputed their liability for Claire’s emotional suffering. They argued that her symptoms could all be attributed to post-natal depression, rather than the trauma of the forgotten swab, and thus they were not liable. There was no agreement over the amount of compensation to which Claire was entitled. Due to the contest of liability, the case proceeded to the High Court of Dublin for an assessment of damages. 

The case was heard in the High Court by Mr Justice Kevin Cross. The judge agreed with the consensus at the hospital that the difficult labour was a good indicator that Claire suffered from post-natal depression. He also agreed that her continuing symptoms could be attributed to an underlying condition. 

However, Judge Cross also stated had Claire received adequate post-natal care, it is highly likely that her recovery from post-natal depression have been much more swift. He also agreed that Claire was “entirely appropriately extremely distressed” by the experience. Claire was then awarded €140,000 for the injuries and infections she sustained because of the forgotten vaginal swab. 

Many High Court judges have called for the government to introduce a structured payment scheme for compensation settlements to catastrophically injured patients.

For several years now, many prominent High Court judges have made statements to the government expressing the need for legislation to enable structured payment systems for hospital negligence compensation settlements. They claim that the current system of lump sum payments is cumbersome, and failing the victims of negligence and their families. The judges-including Mr Justice John Quirke, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, and Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill-liken the way such claims are settled at the moment to a “lottery”, or a gamble on the basis of the anticipated life expectancy of a seriously injured victim.

Mr Justice Bernard Barton has recently spoken in favour of the movement with his fellow judges. His statement came while he was presiding over the O’Neill vs National Maternity Hospital. The case involved a young girl who suffers from cerebral palsy as a result of negligence by the hospital staff in charge of her birth in 2007. The defendants admit liability for her injuries. However, there is a disagreement as to how the compensation shall be paid; the defendants want to make interim settlements, but the mother of the young girl wants to a full settlement to be offered. Furthermore, neither party can agree to how much compensation the girl should be awarded.

There is considerable disagreement between the two parties as to the full cost of the girl’s future needs, and the potential loss of earnings of the family members charged with caring for her.  They argue that by offering an interim settlement, an investigation can be made over the next decade so that her needs can be assessed. Then, they would compile a report and the value of compensation calculated. However, her mother declined this manner of settlement. She claims that the frequent disruptions to her daughter’s life may cause psychological damage, and she wants her to live as normal a life as possible.

The judge and both parties agreed that if structured payment systems were in place, it would be easier to resolve the dispute over how much compensation the girl-or any catastrophically injured plaintiff-should receive. Negotiations in this case continue, with hopes of them reaching an end in the near future. The aforementioned judges have all used cases like this in the past to highlight the importance of structured settlements. The government has yet to act on their suggestions.

The HSE has admitted liability for the case of inadequate treatment of meningitis in a young boy who was left paralysed due to the negligence.

In March 2004, Matthew McGrath was just seventeen months old when he was admitted to Wexford General Hospital. His parents brought him to hospital when he started displaying symptoms such as vomiting and drowsiness. After initial medical examination, he was diagnosed with Haemophilus Influenza Type B. This is an established precursor to meningitis, and as such, Matthew should have been given antibiotics. However, these were never offered to him.

Matthew was kept in hospital overnight under observation. His condition severely deteriorated. He then went into shock, and in spite of the medical guidelines advising against it, a lumbar puncture was performed by medical staff at the facility. This provided evidence that Matthew did indeed have meningitis. However, in spite of medical intervention, Matthew is now permanently paralysed due to compression of his spinal cord.

Matthew cannot move any of his limbs and is reliant on a ventilator to breathe. He spent the next two years in hospital, until his parents finally were able to take him home from hospital and take him into their full-time care.

Cathy McGrath sought legal counsel, and made a claim for compensation on her son’s behalf. In the claim, it was alleged that due to the failure in care-both for the lack of antibiotics and the inappropriate lumbar puncture-Matthew was left severely disabled. They argued had Matthew received adequate treatment upon his admission to Wexford General Hospital, he would not be much healthier than he is now.

An investigation launched into the incident. After the results were issued in a report, the HSE admitted liability for the negligence of medical staff at the facility. After issuing an apology, an interim compensation settlement of €3.7 million was agreed upon by the two parties. As Matthew is a minor, it first needed to be approved by a judge to ensure it is in his best interests.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross heard the case at the High Court in Dublin. He was detailed the circumstances of the case, and approved the interim settlement. The case was then adjourned for five years such that an assessment of Matthew’s future needs could be conducted.

A judge has ruled in favour of a young girl who has been left severely disabled after her hydrocephalus was left untreated for many months after a missed diagnosis by a public health nurse.

In April 2008, three-month old Ava Kiernan was displaying symptoms of hydrocephalus. The disease-commonly known as “water on the brain” is caused by spinal fluid collecting in the skull as a result of it not draining from the brain. A common symptom in young children is a sudden increase in the circumference of head, or for bulges to appear lower at the base of the skull.

Concerned for her daughter’s wellbeing, Ruth Kiernan brought her to seek medical attention. She was first seen by a public health nurse, who did not diagnose anything wrong with Ava, and failed to arrange a follow-up consultation for her. However, in September that year, Ruth brought Ava back to hospital, still concerned by her daughter’s symptoms. Her skull was measured, but the procedure was performed incorrectly, resulting in inaccurate results.

Due to these errors, and the original nurse’s negligence, the pressure of the spinal fluid in the skull resulted in Ava suffering from brain damage. She now suffers from both physical and mental disabilities, and is heavily reliant on her parents.

On her daughter’s behalf, Ruth Kiernan sought legal advice.  She made a hydrocephalus brain injury claim for compensation against the HSE. The claim argued that had consultation been organised after the original visit, the rapid change in the size of the young girl’s head would have been identified and thus treated. Furthermore, had subsequent measurements been made correctly, further damage could have been avoided.

The HSE denied any negligence by their staff and rejected liability.  The case was then brought to the High Court to resolve the dispute in liability. The case was heard by Mr Justice Kevin Cross, who ruled in Ava’s favour after three weeks. He stated that if there had been the appropriate follow-up examination, or if the measurement of her head in September had been carried out correctly, the hydrocephalus would have been identified and suitably treated. Had it been identified, the judge stated that Ava never would have suffered the brain damage due to the excess of fluid.

Judge Cross adjourned the case so that an investigation into Ava’s future needs could be assessed, and an appropriate settlement could be made to provide for her future. He further stated that he hoped for a structured payment system to be put in place by the government such that a lump sum payment could be avoided.

The case of a teenager who suffers from Erb’s palsy due to medical negligence surrounding her court has been resolved in the High Court.

In January 2004, Keelan Murray was born at the National Maternity Hospital. Shortly after her birth, she was diagnosed with shoulder dystocia. This is a condition that occurs when the infant’s shoulders fail to clear the mother’s pubis symphsis during birth. It frequently leads to damage of the brachial plexus nerve if excessive force is used to free the baby. In some cases, the conditions heals over time. However, Keelan’s injury remained permanent. She now suffers from Erb’s palsy.

Keelan, who lives in Newtownmountkennedy in Co. Wicklow, has never gained motor control over her right arm. Only her left arm is functional for performing even basic tasks. She has also been forced to learn how to write with her left hand, despite being right handed. Medical professionals attempted to fix the injury in 2012 via surgery, but it was unsuccessful and the damage remains permanent.

Sharon, Keelan’s mother, sought legal counsel on behalf of her daughter. She made a claim for compensation for the birth injury against the National Maternity Hospital. The claim alleges that in spite of the diagnosis of dystocia, excess force was used to free Keelan of the birth canal.

The hospital denied any liability for Keelan’s injuries. In spite of the denial of liability, they offered a sum of compensation. After much negotiation between the parties, a settlement of €250,000 was agreed upon without an admission of liability.

As the claim was made on behalf of a minor, the case needed to proceed to court so the compensation claim could be approved by a judge to ensure that it was in Keelan’s best interests. The case was heard by Mr Justice Kevin Cross at the High Court in Dublin.

At the hearing, Judge Cross was told that Keelan actively participated in many sports activities in despite of her disability. He ruled that it was prudent to accept the compensation settlement for Erb’s palsy without the admission of liability, and finished by wishing Keelan well for the future.

The Medical Protection Society in Ireland has released a new set of proposals with the aim of reducing the cost of making a medical negligence claim in Ireland by changing existing protocol.

The Medical Protection Society is a non-profit organisation which seeks to  provide legal assistance to those working in the medical sector. Recently, it has brought forward proposals for “pre-trial protocols” which aim to lower the costs of hospital negligence claims for all those involved. Currently, bringing legal action against the Health Service Executive (HSE) incurs very high costs, a problem that the Medical Protection Society is keen to fix.

The primary goal of the new set of proposals is to make communication between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s legal teams easier by promoting openness and transparency on both sides. Furthermore, they want to provide an opportunity for each negligence claim made against the hospital to be investigated before litigation is even necessary, with a chance that the claim may even be revoked or resolved.

It is hoped that adversarial processes will be left out due to the improved dialogue between sides, which in turn should lower the costs of medical negligence claims in hospitals across Ireland. In both England and Wales, solicitors suffer financial penalties if they go straight to the litigation procedure without first attempting some sort of mediation. If the MPS is successful, such penalties would not be required.

The MPS’s Director of Claims-Emma Hallinan-has suggested that the protocol should first be trialled voluntarily before any legislation is introduced. She states: “We recognise the important role that the MPS must play, and have committed to trialling procedural reform before it is introduced in statute. We are in the process of writing to plaintiff lawyers with large medical negligence practices to request that they work with us to pilot this.”

A tariff of general damages would be introduced if the MPS is successful. This is comparable to the Judicial College’s “Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases” in the UK. This would act as a scale of compensation awards for specific physical injuries caused by hospital negligence, covering a wide range of common injuries from dental damage to severe brain trauma.

Other general damages-such as loss of amenity and emotional trauma-as well as special damages to replace lost income and expenses would still require negotiation between parties to resolve. Medical and legal experts who have read the MPS proposals thus far have widely commended them, stating that they are heading in the right direction to lower the costs of making such hospital negligence claims in Ireland.

An RTÉ documentary about the “sickening” abuse of residents at care home has recently been aired.

A recently aired RTÉ documentary entitled “Inside Bungalow Three” has revealed serious cases of care home negligence at a home for intellectually disabled people. The programme showed scenes of care workers at Áras Attracta care home in Swinford, County Mayo subjecting the patients under their care to physical and psychological abuse. The footage was filmed by an undercover reporter. A former employee of the centre alerted RTÉ to the negligence they witnessed. The former employee-who prefers to remain anonymous-claims that their concerns to upper management had been disregarded.

The undercover reporter had posed as a work experience student to gain access to the facility. They were placed in “Bungalow Three”, which acted as  a home to three intellectually disabled women. She witnessed the shocking treatment of the residents, which included slapping, kicking and force-feeding. The documentary shows one resident is denied use of the bathroom, while another resident-a 75-year-old woman-is kept seated in the same position for six hours.

The care home negligence broadcast in the documentary attracted widespread attention. Taoiseach Enda Kenny described the abuse shown in the documentary as “sickening”, while Tony O´Brien – the Director General of the HSE – commented that the level of care was totally unacceptable and fell well below “the standards that we expect in the health services”.

Minister of State at the Department of Health, Kathleen Lynch, has publicly stated that she refused to believe that “Áras Attracta is the only place where this is happening”. Lorraine Dempsey from the Special Needs Parents Association added “Absolute responsibility in any setting goes right up to the top level of management, and in this case we are talking about the HSE”.

The HSE has launched two investigations into the care home negligence at Áras Attracta. The first investigation is focusing on the specific mistreatment of residents portrayed in the documentary and the second on the care home for the intellectually disabled in general. The Gardaí and the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa) have also launched their own investigations into potential criminal activity.

Tony O´Brien apologised to the residents and their families on behalf of the HSE for the care home negligence. He said that the HSE did not wish to “pre-empt the findings of an independent investigation” but that the HSE has taken immediate actions to “guarantee that a safe and caring environment exists for the residents of Bungalow Three”. Since the documentary has been aired, nine staff have been suspended while the investigations into the care home negligence are conducted.

The government has announced a scheme for women to claim compensation for a symphysiotomy procedures that was conducted between the 1940s and the 1980s without their adequate consent.

Previously, the government had stated that they had plans to create a window in the Statute of Limitations. They have since abandoned that plan in favour of a new scheme has been announced to enable the estimated 350 survivors of childbirth symphysiotomies and pubiotomies to claim compensation for a symphysiotomy.

Solicitors advised the government that opening a window in the Statute of Limitations would set a legal precedent which could be considered unlawful, and therefore the government abandoned that plan. The new scheme consists of payments based on consequences of undergoing the procedure. There are three tiers of compensation offered to women under the scheme:

• Women who had a symphysiotomy but did not suffer any serious long term consequences will be entitled to €50,000 compensation.

• Women who suffered a quantifiable injury as the result of a symphysiotomy procedure will receive €100,000 compensation.

• Women who gave birth by Caesarean Section and then underwent a symphysiotomy will get €150,000 compensation.

The government has appointed Maureen Harding-Clark-a former High Court Judge-to assess each application for compensation. They further granted her the authority to extend the December 5th deadline for applications by a further 20 working days in exceptional circumstances.

Once an application has been assessed and an offer of compensation made, survivors have twenty days in which to accept the assessment. Under the terms of the scheme, the plaintiff must withdraw any claim for compensation for a symphysiotomy currently going through the High Court in order to receive the payment. However, if they are dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered to them, they are free to make an appeal.

Marie O’Connor – chairwoman of Survivors of Symphysiotomy group – has criticised the scheme for its short time limit and said that it makes it “impossible for women to seek independent advice and to make a considered decision” within the time allowed. Therefore, the chance of any women appealing their case instead of accepting the offer very small. Currently, more than 150 High Court actions are in progress, with dates for two hearings already set.

There has also been criticism of the scheme from Mark Kelly – the Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. Mr Kelly believes that the scheme falls short of what is required under Ireland´s human rights obligations on two counts – that it does not allow the victims to claim compensation for a symphysiotomy on an individual basis, and because the state has made no admission of liability.

A High Court judge has approved an interim settlement of compensation offered to a young boy suffering from cerebral palsy.

In January 2010, Dylan Kenny was born at the Waterford Regional Hospital. Due to the negligence of medical staff managing his birth, Dylan was left deprived of oxygen in the womb. He was born with severe disabilities, and   subsequently suffers from cerebral palsy. He is unable to walk without aid, and has difficulty expressing himself verbally. He will remain reliant on care from his parents for the rest of his life.

On behalf of their son, Claire O´Brien and Lloyd Kenny sought legal counsel. They made a claim for birth injuries due to hospital negligence against the hospital where their son was born. The claim alleged that there had been a failure to monitor the foetal heart rate during Claire´s labour, a failure to act on the results of a concerning CTG trace, and to react within a reasonable time to signs of foetal distress and hypoxia.

The family’s legal team claimed that, had Dylan been delivered earlier, his birth injuries would not have been so severe. In June, the Health Service Executive (HSE) acknowledged that mistakes had been made in the management of Claire´s labour, admitted liability for Dylan´s brain injuries and issued an apology. As the case was made on behalf of a child, it needed to be heard at the High Court to ensure that any offer of compensation made was in the child’s best interests.

At the High Court in Dublin, Mr Justice John Cook asked to approve a €2 million interim settlement of compensation for birth injuries due to hospital negligence. Judge Cook heard that the interim settlement was to provide care for Dylan for a period of three years to allow for his future needs to be assessed and for the possible introduction of a structured compensation scheme.

After hearing that Dylan´s parents were happy with the interim payment, and preferred it to the lump sum payment proposed by the HSE and State Claims Agency, Judge Cook approved the settlement of compensation for birth injuries due to hospital negligence. He wished the family well, and expressed hope that a structured payment scheme would be introduced soon.

A woman has received permission from a High Court judge to pursue her case for compensation for medication side effects in court.

Lorna Savage (now forty-three years of age) of Cobh, County Cork, has been granted with permission by a High Court judge to pursue her claim for compensation for medication side effects. The claim is being made against the manufacturer of the medication, Pfizer. The drug company had applied to the courts for Ms Savage’s case to be dismissed, citing that too much time had passed since the claim was first filed against them.

The case was heard by Mr Justice George Birmingham. The judge was informed that Lorna was first prescribed the steroid Deltacortril in 1997 to treat the skin disorder vasculitis. This is a condition which in which damaged blood vessels cluster together and cause an irritable rash on the surface of the skin.

Lorna claims that after a few years of taking the steroid, her condition deteriorated due to her developing Avascular Necrosis. This disease prevents blood from reaching the bones of the knee and hip joints. This lack of blood causes the bone tissue in these areas to die. This eventually results in the knee and hip bones collapsing entirely, severely limiting the mobility of the sufferer. Furthermore, it has been established as a rare side effect to the steroid Deltacortril.

Lorna had both of her knees and one of her hips replaced nearly four years after being prescribed the steroid.  The Avascular Necrosis is so severe she is now entirely reliant on a wheelchair to move. She claims that she is in a perpetual state of discomfort, and is reliant on morphine to manage the pain.

Lorna sought legal counsel, and made a claim for medication side effects against the two doctors who had prescribed her the drug-GP Dr Michael Madigan and her consultant doctor at the Cork University Hospital-Dr M Molloy. Lorna also made a further claim for medication side effects compensation against the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. All of the defendants denied liability for her injuries. Pfizer applied to have Lorna’s claim dismissed on the grounds of “an inordinate and inexcusable delay” in bringing her case to court.

Dr Madigan’s died in 1999, so the claim was made against his estate. Lorna claimed that he had failed to fully investigate her skin condition. Furthermore, she stated that he had been negligent to her health in prescribing her Deltacortril as he should have been aware of all potential side effects. In her claim against Dr Molloy, Lorna claimed that he had been negligent in recognising the symptoms of Avascular Necrosis.

In Lorna’s claim against Pfizer,  she alleged that he company did not provide a warning with their medication that their use could case Avascular Necrosis, and had not advised against the consumption of alcohol while taking the tablets.

At court, the judge was informed that the cause of the delay was due to Lorna being unable to instruct her solicitors as she had undergone a total of seven major operations. Mr Justice George Birmingham ruled the delay “excusable”, and denied Pfizer’s application to dismiss the case. The case was listed for a full hearing later in the year.

A new Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme has been launched by the Department of Social Protection to reclaim benefits.

The Recovery of Certain Benefits and Assistance Scheme was introduced on the August 1st.  The Department of Social Protection (DSP) initiative was created to help the DSP  to recover welfare benefits paid to plaintiffs in cases where the benefits relate directly to their claim.

Under the new scheme, if a settlement of compensation has been agreed  to by the plaintiff (and approved by a judge if necessary), the negligent party´s insurance company (or State Claims Agency) will have to apply to the DSP for a statement showing how much welfare payments have been received by the injured plaintiff over the previous five years.

The insurance company/State Claims Agency will then deduct the amount of the welfare payments from settlements of medical negligence compensation, send the repayment of the benefits to the DSP. The remainder of the compensation settlement will then be sent to the plaintiff when a certificate of payment has been received.

Plaintiffs looking for medical negligence compensation often face significant and debilitating delays. The DSP is allowed up to four weeks to send the insurance company/State Claims Agency the statement of benefits. After this, the insurance company/State Claims Agency must submit the repayment of welfare benefits to the Department and wait for a certificate of repayment to be returned.

The balance of the compensation settlement can only be sent to the injured plaintiff when a certificate of payment has been received. Depending on the efficiency of the DSP, the insurance company and the State Claims Agency, settlements of medical negligence compensation could be delayed by up to three months.

The DSP has released a list of allowances which are subject to the new rules, including:

• Invalidity Pension

• Disability Allowance

• Illness Benefit

• Injury Benefit

• Partial Capacity Benefit

• Incapacity Supplement

Injured persons considering making a claim for compensation should note that the receipt of welfare benefits does not disqualify you from claiming medical negligence compensation.

Plaintiffs waiting for settlements of medical negligence compensation should also be aware that the repayment of any welfare benefits you may have received is not your responsibility.

If you have any questions about the new procedures relating to settlements of medical negligence compensation, how to check any welfare deductions are accurate, and what to do if you believe they are wrong, please consult with a medical negligence solicitor as soon as possible.

A High Court judge has apologised to the family of a young boy suffering from cerebral palsy for the lack of a system of periodic payments being made available to the family.

Luke Miggin (now eight years of age) from Athboy in County Meath was born on 26th February 2006 at the Mullingar General Hospital. Medical staff had failed to act on scans which showed that he had a decelerating foetal heart rate, and as such, he was deprived of oxygen in the womb. Luke had to be resuscitated immediately after he was born, and was transferred to an intensive care unit for special neonatal care. Luke was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He has limited motor skills, and is reliant on twenty-four hour care from his parents.

Through his mother – Emily – Luke made a claim for cerebral palsy compensation on the grounds that his mother´s consultant obstetrician – Michael Gannon – had failed to act on CTG traces taken throughout the day, which indicated a deceleration of the foetal heart rate. Had the obstetrician acted with adequate care, Luke never would have been deprived of oxygen and thus would not have suffered the injuries that he does to this day.

In 2010, the defendants admitted their liability for Luke´s birth injuries. The two legal teams negotiated an interim settlement of compensation. As Luke was a minor at the time, the compensation needed to be approved by a judge in the High Court to ensure that it was in his best interests. In January 2011 the interim compensation payment for cerebral palsy amounting to €1.35 million was approved by Mr Justice John Quirke.

Luke´s case was adjourned for three years in the hopes that structured settlement system to be introduced.  In spite of the promises of several ministers, a system of periodic payments is still not available. Therefore,  Emily Miggin returned to the High Court to have a second interim compensation payment for cerebral palsy approved by Ms Justice Mary Irvine.

Judge Irvine apologised to Emily for successive Justice Ministers who had failed to keep their promises to introduce a system of periodic payments, and said that ongoing litigation was preventing her family from getting on their lives.The judge approved a further €580,000 interim compensation payment for cerebral palsy and adjourned Luke´s case for a further three years. It is hoped that the system of periodic payments will be set up in this time.

A High Court Judge has approved the Medical Defence Union’s request to withdraw from a surgical compensation case being made against a surgeon who died earlier this year.

Cosmetic surgeon Mr Samy Malhas was the defendant in two cosmetic surgery compensation claims when he died earlier this year in Germany. His death came shortly after having been declared bankrupt. Following the death of Mr Malhas, the High Court has allowed the Medical Defence Union (MDU) to withdraw the claims made by the two plaintiffs.

One of the claimants, Mary Jo Moloney, alleged that her breast augmentation surgery had left her with hypersensitivity, scarring and a distortion of her breast shape. The other claimant, Deidre Shortt, claimed she was the victim of a negligent rhinoplasty procedure. The two plaintiffs were treated by the name surgeon, but at different clinics in Dublin.

Before his death, the defendant denied both claims. He requested legal representation through the Medical Defence Union (MDU). The MDU had consented, but following Mr Malhas´ death, made an application to the courts to “come off record” and withdraw from the case. The application to withdraw their cases was contested by both Mary Jo Moloney and Deidre Shortt,

Mr Justice George Birmingham heard the case at the High Court. He allowed the application, despite acknowledging that this would place the success of the two cosmetic surgery compensation claims in doubt.

The Advanced Cosmetic Surgery Clinic in Dublin – at which Mary Jo underwent her breast enlargement procedure in November 2003  – is now in liquidation and has no insurance policy against which to claim. The Cosmedico Clinic in Dublin, where Deidre underwent her rhinoplasty procedure in August 2007, is still in business. However, Deidre´s claim could still face difficulties.

Mr Justice George Birmingham made it a condition of the MDU´s withdrawal from the cosmetic surgery compensation claims that the two plaintiffs were refunded the legal costs they have incurred to date. They now must follow through with alternative legal action if they still want to make a claim for compensation for their allegedly negligent procedures.

The family of a young woman who died due to a missed cancer diagnosis has received compensation from the HSE.

In April 2009, Sharon McEneaney (thirty-one years of age) of Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, died from a cancerous tumour that grew in her abdomen. She had been diagnosed with cancer nine months prior to her death, after it being misdiagnosed when she had sought earlier medical treatment.

Sharon first sought medical attention after experiencing intense pain in her lower abdomen. She attended the emergency department of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda eighteen months prior to her death, and was attended to by medical staff. The tumour that was growing in her abdomen was not found by medical staff.

The cancerous tumour grew for another nine months due to this missed diagnosis. Sharon continued to experience pain, and sought further medial attention. In June 2008, she underwent a biopsy due to the intervention for Dr Rory O’Hanlon, a former TD. By the time the tumour was recognised as cancerous, it had grown too large to be treated. Sharon died of the cancer the following year.

An investigation into Sharon’s death was launched by the Health Service Executive (HSE).The investigators complied a report of 38 recommendations to prevent future failures to diagnose cancer. In January 2012, Dr Etop Samson Akan was found guilty of a poor professional performance by the Medical Council of Ireland’s Fitness to Practise Committee for his treatment of Sharon.

The case was brought to the High Court where it was heard by Ms Justice Mary Irvine. The court heard the General Manager of the Louth & Meath Hospital Group-Margaret Swords read out an apology to Sharon’s family, admitting that the hospital had failed in their treatment of Sharon. The apology also stated that the hospital was making progress in making the changes required to prevent a similar incident from happening again. The court heard in the five years following Sharon’s death, the hospital had implemented six of the HSE’s recommendations.

The HSE made an offer of compensation to Sharon’s family for their failure to diagnose cancer. The two legal teams entered negotiations, and the offer of compensation was valued at €62,500. Sharon’s funeral and other expenses related to her death have been covered by €10,000 settlement, and a further €27,100 in compensation has been awarded for the failure to diagnose the cancer to Sharon’s mother Jane. The remainder of the settlement is being shared between Sharon’s siblings.

Ms Justice Mary Irvine closed the hearing after commending Sharon´s family for their courage, and commented “You have shown marvellous fortitude in the face of such a loss”.

A teenager girl has received an interim settlement of compensation for a birth injury claim she made against the HSE.

In October 1999, Mary Malee (now 14 years of age) was born at the Mayo General Hospital to Maura Malee of Swinford, Country Mayo. Following several hours of avoidable delay, Mary was born by emergency Caesarean section. Two days prior to Mary´s birth, her mother had attended the consultant who had delivered her three previous children. There, she was informed that he was about to start treatment for cancer. Therefore, he would be unavailable for Mary´s delivery himself.

The consultant advised Maura that arrangements would be made for another consultant to be present at the birth. The following day, Maura attended her GP, feeling unwell. The GP advised to go to hospital immediately as she was displaying symptoms of pre-eclampsia, and the health of her baby was in danger.

On arrival at Mayo General Hospital, Maura was transferred to the labour ward, where she underwent a CTG shortly before 6:00am. This scan revealed a series of foetal heartbeat deceleration, showing that Mary was in distress int he womb. The first consultant that was contacted was unavailable and a second consultant arrived shortly before 7:00am.

Maura alleges that delay in communicating the foetal distress in the womb to the new consultant. Despite the danger to Mary, the Caesarean procedure did not get underway until after 7:20am. Due to the delay, Mary suffered from a lack of oxygen and was born severely brain damaged. She was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy.

Through her early years, Mary has been able to attend mainstream school and, despite being confined to a wheelchair, hopes to attend university when she grows older. She is currently reliant on her parents for care and aid in performing many tasks. Aware that this arrangement could not last forever, Maura Malee made a claim for compensation for delayed birth cerebral palsy on behalf of her daughter against the Mayo General Hospital and the Health Service Executive (HSE).

In the claim for delayed birth cerebral palsy compensation it was alleged that there had been a failure to intervene and initiate a Caesarean delivery in a timely manner, or to ensure that a paediatrician was present at Mary´s birth. It was known by medical staff at the facility that Mary was suffering from foetal distress, and that she was likely to require expert resuscitation

Both the Mayo General Hospital and the HSE denied their liability for Mary´s birth injuries. The case went to the High Court to be heard by Ms Justice Mary Irvine. In spite of their denial of liability, both parties agreed to an interim settlement of compensation for delayed birth cerebral palsy amounting €1.5 million. They further agreed to a future assessment of Mary´s needs within two years, hoping for the introduction of a structured compensation system.

In court, Mary read out a statement in which she remarked “It would have been appreciated had the HSE/Mayo General Hospital said they were sorry”, after which Judge Irvine approved the settlement of compensation for a delayed birth cerebral palsy and adjourned the hearing.

A judge has adjourned the hearing of a case in which a woman claims for psychological damages after she was incorrectly told that she had contracted HIV.

In August 2010, Michelle Kenny (35) of Crumlin, Dublin, just returned from a holiday in Majorca when she began to feel unwell. She sought medical attention at St James Hospital in Dublin. Medical staff at the facility performed an ECG scan, and had an x-ray of her chest taken in an attempt to diagnose some form of illness. Several blood samples were also taken for testing.

Michelle was admitted to hospital and remained there for a week, under observation. Medical staff believed that she may be suffering from having a blood clot in her lung. She was eventually discharged, but the result of a blood test for tuberculosis still had not returned. Michelle returned to Outpatients Clinic early the following month, where she underwent further blood tests, one of them testing for HIV.

A week after these tests were done, Michelle received a phone call from her doctor stating that although she was clear for TB, the HIV test that was completed came back as positive. Three further tests were taken, all of which indicated that a mistake had been made with the initial test, and Michelle did not in fact have HIV.

An investigation was launched into the incorrect diagnosis of HIV case, and it was revealed that the doctor at St James Hospital had given her the wrong person’s results. Michelle sought legal counsel, and made a claim for compensation for nervous shock against the hospital. She alleged that the news, albeit incorrect, had stopped her from socialising and caused a change in her lifestyle, having a hugely negative effect on her psychological wellbeing.

The defendants contested the claim, stating that Michelle had not suffered any loss or damages due to the mix-up. They argued that Michelle had quickly been informed of the mistake, and therefor was not entitled to any compensation for the mix-up. Michelle told the court, “I was devastated. I thought I was going to die, that I had no future.”

Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon heard the case, and stated that she would reserve judgement on the claim for test result mix-up compensation for a later date.

A woman who experienced massive post-surgical bleeding following the delivery of her child has been awarded compensation by the High Court.

In January 2008, Honey Larkin of Letterkenny, County Donegal, brought a case against the Health Service Executive and her consultant gynaecologist Eddie Aboud for negligence surrounding the birth of her child at the Letterkenny General Hospital. Honey-forty two years-of-age-gave birth by emergency Caesarian section at the hospital. After the operation was complete, she experienced a massive internal haemorrhage. In spite of displaying symptoms of post-surgical bleeding, these were overlooked by medical staff in charge of the birth.

Honey lost more than half of her total volume of blood by the time she was returned to the operating theatre to attempt to stop the bleeding. Honey later described this as a “near-death” experience. Honey claims that she now suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the incident, and now has a fear of medical procedures.

Honey further claims that neither her gynaecologist nor the other medical staff at the hospital checked on her following the surgery, and thus failed to recognise that she was bleeding after the initial surgery. When her distress was eventually responded to, there was a failure to attach due significance or act appropriately within a reasonable time.

Both of the defendants denied the claim, stating that Honey had been treated in an appropriate manner as soon as her post-surgical bleeding was recognised by medical staff. However, Honey continued with her claim for compensation. As their was a dispute over liabilty, the case was brought to the High Court.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross oversaw proceedings at the High Court. He was told that no bleeding had been apparent when Mr Aboud had finished the Caesarean Section operation. Mr Aboud said that when he was called back to attend to Honey´s post-surgical bleeding, he performed the operation successfully to stop the haemorrhage. Judge Cross said that no blame could be attributed to Mr Aboud and that charges against the consultant gynaecologist were dropped.

The judge did stated that the length of time that it had taken for medical staff to identify the bleeding and respond to Honey’s distress was inadequate, and must have caused Honey a great deal of distress. The judge awarded her €25,000 in compensation as a result of the hospital “needlessly” delaying Honey’s revision for surgery by more than an hour.

The HSE has apologised to the family of a woman who wrongfully died  of dehydration while in hospital.

In January 2010, Eileen Brady was referred to the Cavan General Hospital by her GP. She had been diagnosed with mouth ulcers which were a result of poor fluid intake. Eileen was admitted to hospital to receive emergency medical attention, but died a day later. An investigation was launched into the cause of her death, which revealed that her death was due organ failure. The cause of the organ failure was later attributed to dehydration.

An investigation was also launched into the circumstances surrounding Eileen’s death. Investigators reported that the treatment that Eileen had received for her dehydrated stated was ineffective in helping her, as her veins had collapsed due to the chemotherapy treatment that she was undergoing in a Dublin hospital to treat her stomach cancer.

It was also revealed that the death was entirely preventable had Eileen’s medical charts been examined more closely and current medical treatments acknowledged. If senior, more experienced physicians had been consulted as Eileen’s condition deteriorated during her time in care, or if Cavan General Hospital had leased with the Dublin hospital that was treating Eileen for her cancer, the condition of her veins could have been revealed and her death could have been prevented.

Eileen’s son-Martin Brady of Crosskeys, County Cavan-sought legal counsel. He made a claim against the Cavan General Hospital and the Health Service Executive (HSE) on behalf of his entire family. He claimed that Eileen’s death had been avoidable if the above measures were taken. He further stated that Eileen’s death had caused the family mental distress. The HSE admitted liability for Eileen’s death due to their staff’s lack of care. The two legal teams negotiated a compensation settlement which was agreed out of court, subject to the family receiving a public apology.

The case was brought to the High Court for the settlement of compensation to be approved by Ms Justice Mary Irvine. A representative of the HSE read out a statement in which the hospital and the HSE both apologised for the negligence care which resulted in Eileen’s death, and the subsequent grief and stress that had been suffered by her friends and family.

Responding on behalf of the family, Aidan Brady said he hoped that both Cavan General Hospital and the HSE had learned from “the grave mistakes” made in the care of his mother “and that no other family would have to go through the trauma and distress that we have suffered”.

A High Court judge has approved a settlement of compensation offered to a disabled teenager in a birth injury case.

In November 2000, Katie Martin from Trim in County Meath was born at the Coombe Hospital. Her mother – Fiona – had been admitted to the hospital very early in the morning after experiencing irregular contractions.

Following her admission into hospital, Fiona underwent a CTG trace on foetal heartbeat. The results of the trace registered abnormal readings, which suggested Katie was in distress and was being deprived of oxygen in the womb.

However, it took nearly an hour and a half for an emergency Caesarean Section to be organised. As such, when Katie was delivered, she showed no signs of life as she had suffered a cardiac arrest.

Staff at the hospital intervened and resuscitate Katie. She was then transferred to an intensive care unit for further observation. However, Katie had suffered severe brain injuries due to a lack of oxygen in the womb. She was born severely disabled, and will require constant care for the rest of her life.

Fiona Martin sought legal counsel and made a compensation claim for the delay in delivering a child on her daughter´s behalf. However, the Coombe Hospital denied its liability for Katie´s injuries. They stated that Katie was deprived of oxygen in the womb before her mother arrived at the hospital, and thus they were not liable for Katie’s injuries.

The hospital argued that that there was nothing that could have been done to prevent Katie´s brain injury and prepared a full defence against the compensation claim for the delay in delivering a child. Due to the contest in liability, the case was brought to court.

At the High Court in Dublin, Ms Justice Mary Irvine heard that a settlement of €4 million compensation for a delayed birth injury had been negotiated without admission of liability from the hospital. As such, the case was before her for approval of the settlement rather than determination of liability.

The judge was told the circumstances of Katie´s brain damage before approving the settlement and commenting that it was a good one in the circumstances.

A young boy has received compensation from the State Claims Agency for a birth injury which left him suffering from cerebral palsy.

In July 2007, Dylan Gaffney (now six years of age) from Kilcohan Park in Waterford was born at the Waterford Regional Hospital. At the time of birth, medical staff desired him as being “in a poor condition”. Due to complications just before his birth, his mother-Jean-delivered him via an emergency Caesarean Section. Dylan was born not being able to breath, but no paediatrician was immediately available to resuscitate him.

Jean Gaffney had earlier requested a Caesarean Section delivery for Dylan;. This was due to her first child being born by an emergency Caesarean section after she struggled through 51 hours of labour. Before becoming pregnant with Dylan, she had miscarried a second child. However, her obstetrician had suggested a natural birth would be preferable. This is in spite of him taking an ultrasound just before Dylan´s birth indicating that he weighed nine pounds and four ounces, making him significantly larger than average. Doctors should have been aware that this would cause trouble if a natural birth were attempted.

The ultrasound was conducted two days prior to Dylan´s birth when Jean had attended the Waterford Regional Hospital because she believed her waters had broken. She was assured that everything was proceeding normally. An antenatal appointment was scheduled for five days later; but, on the morning of the 22nd July, Jean went into spontaneous labour and was admitted into the hospital.

Jean was given the drug oxytocic to stimulate her contractions and told to start pushing. In the High Court, Jean´s solicitor stated that the directions given to Jean were inappropriate in the circumstances, and a Caesarean should have been performed straight away. Instead, hospital staff waited until after 2.00pm in the afternoon before transferring Jean to theatre to deliver her child.

Unfortunately, due to the significant delay in his birth, Dylan had been starved of oxygen. He was born severely brain damaged, and was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy and other birth injuries.

Jean sought legal advice to claim compensation on behalf of her son. She later made a claim against the HSE for birth injuries. Jean and her solicitor also wrote the State Claims Agency in June 2009 with evidence of the hospital negligence that resulted in Dylan´s condition compiled by an independent medical expert.

Despite the evidence clearly indicating that Dylan´s birth injuries could have been avoided and were attributable to hospital negligence before, during and after his delivery, the State Claims Agency failed to acknowledged the hospital´s responsibility for Dylan´s condition and refused to consider Jean´s claim against the HSE for birth injuries.
Due to the contest in liability, court orders were issues. The court heard that Jean and her partner – Thomas Hayes – put their lives to one side in order to care for Dylan. It was only shortly before Jean´s claim against the HSE for birth injuries was due to be heard in court that liability for Dylan´s cerebral palsy was admitted, and negotiations started to find a suitable settlement.

The case was heard by Ms Justice Mary Irvine at the High Court in Dublin. The judge was told that an agreement had been reached for Dylan to receive a lump sum payment of €8.5 million. After hearing the circumstances of the claim against the HSE for birth injuries, the judge approved the settlement; but criticised the conduct of the State Claims Agency and Health Service Executive for the delay in admitting liability, thus causing additional stress for Dylan and his family.

A couple has been awarded compensation by the HSE for the allegedly wrongful death of their newborn daughter.

In October 2008, Jane Farren and Feidhlimidh Wrafter from Rathgar in Dublin were anticipating the birth of their baby girl at the Rotunda Hospital. However, both suffered nervous shock when their new-born baby could not be resuscitated after being delivered by an emergency Caesarean Section.

They sought legal counsel, and made a claim for compensation for an emotional trauma after a baby´s death against both the Rotunda Hospital and consultant gynaecologist Professor Fergal Malone. In the claim, they alleged that during the period immediately before their daughter´s delivery, Jane´s labour had been mismanaged and the staff in charge of caring for her during their daughter’s birth had been negligent.

Jane had been admitted to the hospital on the previous day due to a spontaneous membrane rupture. She had been given Syntocinin to induce her labour. There was some difficulty with the layout and, at 3.45am in the morning, a vacuum delivery had been attempted.
Half an hour later, Jane and Feidhlimidh´s daughter – Molly – was delivered by an emergency Caesarean Section, but she was not breathing when she was born. Staff at the hospital could not resuscitate her. Molly was declared dead twenty minutes later.

In their compensation claim for an emotional trauma after a baby´s death, Jane and Feidhlimidh alleged that Professor Malone and nursing staff at the hospital had failed to identify abnormalities in the foetal heart rate at an early enough stage, and when the abnormalities were noticed, failed to act upon them in a timely manner.

It was also alleged that the couple had been misinformed during Jane´s labour and the delivery of their daughter. They state that they were led to believe that medical staff thought that Molly’s death was inexplicable, and there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it. However, an investigation into the case revealed that this was not the case.

The Rotunda Hospital and Professor Malone denied their liability for Molly´s death. The case was heard in the courts. The High Court was told that a settlement of compensation for an emotional trauma after a baby´s death had been negotiated amounting to €150,000 without admission of liability and that the case could be struck out.

A consultant obstetrician has been found guilty of negligence in the case of a baby being born with cerebral palsy.

In November 2001, Roisin Conroy was born at the Midland Regional Hospital in Portloaise . Her mother-Mary Conroy of Portlaoise, County Laois-had sought medical attention at the clinic of her private consultant obstetrician, Dr John Corristine four days earlier, as she believed that her waters had broken. Staff at the clinic had sent Mary home, assuring her that her waters had not in fact broken. However, three days after attended the clinic, and following an ultrasound at the clinic, Mary insisted she be admitted into hospital as she was concerned about the health of her unborn child.

A CTG scan conducted at the hospital failed to indicate any sign of contractions, and Mary was advised to take a bath. However, there was insufficient hot water was available at the hospital. Therefore, Dr Corristine prescribed Mary with some medicine to induce labour.

When Roisin was born the following morning, she suffered seizures soon after her birth and was transferred to a neo-natal unit in Dublin. Dr Corristine was not present during the labour, or at the birth. Despite the specialist attention that Roisin received, her condition failed to improve. She was later diagnosed with dyskinetic cerebral palsy. She is permanently physically disabled and cannot communicate verbally. She relies on eye movement for communication with her parents.

Mary blamed herself for Roisin´s condition, and insisted on having her next two children delivered by Caesarean Section. Both Mary and her husband Kevin gave up work to look after Roisin. The hospital had told them that nothing could have been done to avoid the tragedy and that the couple had just been unlucky, and they believed this narrative.

In spite of blaming themselves, the couple sought legal counsel. An investigation was launched into the circumstances Roisin´s birth, which resulted in investigators finding evidence of negligence against both the hospital and the obstetric consultant. Kevin and Mary then made a claim for cerebral palsy against both the Health Service executive (HSE) and Dr Corristine on their daughter´s behalf.

Both the defendants denied their responsibilities for Roisin´s injuries for almost two years. Due to the despute in liability, a court hearing was scheduled. However, five weeks before a scheduled court hearing ,the hospital and Dr Corristine admitted that errors had been made in the management of Mary´s pregnancy which led to Roisin suffering birth injuries.

An interim payment of compensation for cerebral palsy amounting to €2.3 million was negotiated between the parties. As the compensation was to be paid to a minor, a High Court judge had to approve the settlement. Ms Justice Mary Irvine heard the case regarding the interim payment of compensation for cerebral palsy, and approved the settlement.
The family also heard an apology read to them by an HSE representative and Dr Corristine, after which Ms Justice Mary Irvine adjourned the case for two years so that an assessment of Roisin´s future needs can be made and to allow time for the introduction of a system of structured compensation payments.

The Minister for Health Dr James Reilly has proposed a new symphysiotomy compensation plan after changing its position on extending the Statute of Limitations for women who underwent the procedure between the 1940s and 1980s.

The plans were announced at a press conference. The Minister stated that Judge Yvonne Murphy has been asked to examine the feasibility of a compensation scheme for women who underwent the controversial childbirth procedure, and who have been left with permanent injuries such as incontinence, difficulty with walking and chronic pain.

The former High Court judge has been asked to compile a series of compensation options for review in February 2014, to “assist in finding closure” for the women affected by the operation. The minister’s statement further claimed that the government would contribute to an ex gratia scheme if that is the symphysiotomy compensation plan recommended. It is understood that Judge Murphy will be meeting with insurance companies to explore whether they would contribute towards such a scheme.

A private members bill about the issue had been introduced into the Dáil by Sinn Féin’s Health Spokesman Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. The bill to allowed for a one-year window for the affected women to make claims for symphysiotomy compensation; however the Government were then told that such a move could result in a legal challenge by the insurance companies who would have been liable for compensating the women.

Sinn Féin’s health spokesman Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin criticised plans to keep the statute of limitations in place. He said “The type of scheme outlined in the terms of reference offers the women no prospect of adequate compensation for what was so barbarically done to them nor the choice to pursue their rights in the courts.”
However Chairman of the support group Survivors of Symphysiotomy Ltd – Tom Moran – welcomed the announcement of a new symphysiotomy compensation plan. His comment was “We welcome this decision to appoint the judge and we hope it leads to women finally being given a chance of some kind of closure.”

A widower-whose husband died due to a medication prescription error-has been awarded a settlement of compensation from the HSE.

Margaret Devereux from Greenrath in County Tipperary made her compensation claim for wrongful death due to a medication error following her husband´s death in Cork University Hospital in March 2008.

In 2008, John Devereux attended the South Tipperary General Hospital in Clonmel with a toe infection on his right foot. After initial medical investigation, doctors diagnosed John with suffering from septic arthritis. They prescribed Sodium Fusidate to treat the infection, and discharged him from hospital.

However, John returned to South Tipperary General Hospital the following month after his toe infection failed to clear. He was also experiencing pains in his arms and legs. He was administered with further doses of Sodium Fusidate and admitted to hospital for observation.
John´s condition deteriorated and it was later diagnosed that he was suffering with rhabdmoloysis (a condition in which the muscles break down). A later report revealed that the onset of this condition may have been due to a conflict between the Sodium Fusidate that had been prescribed for him and his existing diabetic medicine, Lipitor.

As a consequence of the muscle breakdown, John developed acute renal failure. He was transferred to Cork University Hospital for specialist attention. In spite of intervention of medical staff, John died on March 2nd.

John´s grieving widow-Margaret-sought legal advice about whether she had a claim for wrongful death due to a medication error which was worth her while to pursue. The Health Service Executive denied that it had been in breach of its duty of care, but offered a settlement of compensation to Margaret. The sum was negotiated between the two legal teams.

At the High Court in Dublin, Mrs Justice Mary Irvine heard that Margaret Devereux had settled her claim for wrongful death due to a medication error for €45,000 and, commenting that there would have been a “huge hill to climb to establish liability”, approved the settlement – describing the case as very tragic.

The judge in a medical negligence case has penalised the plaintiff for making unfounded medical negligence claims against a surgeon, reducing the amount awarded to her in costs.

In June this year, the High Court in Dublin heard the case of Madeline Wright v. the Health Service Executive and the Mater Misericordiae Hospital. The judge found that the HSE had been negligent in the treatment of Madeline´s spine injury. However, the original claim for medical negligence had cited three specific incidents in which Madeline considered her treatment negligent. One of the allegations had been made against her orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Keith Synott. After hearing the evidence presented against the surgeon, the judge found the case against him unfounded and dismissed the claim.

Normally, the costs in a medical negligence claim are usually awarded to the successful party. As the case against the surgeon was dismissed, Ms Justice Mary Irvine penalised Madeline for making unfounded claims. She was only awarded her 65% costs against the expenses she and her legal team had accrued in the presentation and resolution of her claim.

In her departure from the principal of “costs follow the event”, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said “I am satisfied that regardless of the fact that the plaintiff only succeeded on the last of what I consider to have been four separate legs of her claim that she must nonetheless be deemed to be the overall winner of proceedings in which the defendants denied any liability and in the course of which she duly established a right to compensation she would not otherwise have been able to recover”.

The judge added that the proceedings were of a “complex variety”. The duration of the proceedings was significantly extended due to the allegations of negligence against the surgeon which were not substantiated, and thus an costly investigation had to be launched into the matter. This greatly increased the costs of the medical negligence claim to both parties.
Ms Justice Mary Irvine felt that only 20% of the evidence presented in court related to the HSE negligence for which Madeline was ultimately compensated, and she said that she was tempted to make a costs order in favour of the HSE for successfully defending many of the unsubstantiated allegations.

“However”, the judge concluded “as this practice has not to date been customary in this type of litigation, I have decided against such an approach in the present case and will do no more than reflect in a proportionate way the plaintiff’s failure to succeed on this issue when reducing the level of costs to which she is entitled”.

The first of the DePuy `Bellwether` trials – McCracken -v- DePuy Orthopaedics Inc – had already met with delays after Anne McCracken replaced the original plaintiff Faye Dorney-Madgitz in July. The faulty hip replacement court case has been moved from September 9th, to September 24th to accommodate for the change.

Ann McCracken (57) from Rochester in New York made her claim against DePuy Orthopaedics in March 2011. In her claim, she alleged that she had suffered a dislocated hip due to metal particles discharged from her DePuy ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System which was implanted in August 2009.
She underwent orthopaedic surgery to remove the DePuy metal-on-metal hip replacement system in January 2001. The surgeon in charge of the procedure saw evidence of metallosis, which had killed healthy tissue around the implant. This had subsequently caused the dislocation of her hip.

Ann had to undergo further operations in October 2011 to rectify the damage. Surgeons had implant a device which restricts the movement of her hip and which has decreased her mobility further. This restrictive device will also result in her present hip replacement system wearing out quicker than normal. Therefore, Ann will have to undergo further revision surgery in the future.

Ann´s faulty hip replacement court case is also to be decided without reference to the August 2010 recall of the DePuy ASR hip replacement systems. Judge Katz ruled that Ann´s injury “began with the initial implementation” and agreed with DePuy´s lawyers that mentioning the recall during the faulty hip replacement court case might deter other voluntarily recalls of potentially harmful medical devices in the future.

The ‘Bellwether’ trials will be used to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs´ claims and DePuy Orthopaedic´s defence. The motive for consolidating 7,800 claims against DePuy Orthopaedics is to discover if an acceptable point of reference can be determined for the settlement of compensation claims against DePuy Orthopaedics and their parent company Johnson & Johnson.

If no baseline can be established-or if negative verdicts are returned by the jurors-the outstanding claims will be remanded back to the U.S. District Courts in which they were originally filed. Each faulty hip replacement court case would then have to be heard individually. Due to the vast number of claims, this will cause a significant delay in the outcome of the claims and potentially inflicting financial hardship on the plaintiffs.

This would also be the case in Ireland. Plaintiffs who have served notice of cases against Johnson & Johnson, DePuy Orthopaedics and the Health Service Executive may not receive an offer of compensation and will have to pursue their claims against the alleged negligent parties through the Irish court system.