Tagged: Medical Negligence
HIQA has reported on the wholesale failure of staff in Beaumont hospital to wash their hands. (A pdf of their report is available here) The staff knows, in theory, about the germ theory of disease but like everybody else they experience its apparent refutation. We are surrounded by bacteria, we live in a sea of bacteria and few of us are seriously damaged by them. Why, then, is it unacceptable to fail to wash your hands? The answer lies in […]
The Vatican is an uncivilised place. A place is uncivilised if a person may die and the cause of death remains unexplained. This happened on the death, in the Vatican, of Albino Luciani, Pope John Paul I, in 1978. He was Pope for one month. What if he had died in Ireland? Depending on the circumstances there would be an inquest. An inquest is an inquiry by a coroner into the causes and circumstances of certain deaths. A death such […]
We are a firm of lawyers. Our website should deal with legal subjects. Hopefully, we do not lapse from that rule and, without going to the trouble of conducting an audit, we think we do not. It’s a broad rule and allows us to write (polemically if necessary) about such diverse topics as road accidents, accidents at work, medical negligence, planning act infringements and fingerprints. We could, if necessary, even comment on Bilbo Baggins’ contract with the dwarves at the […]
Noted in the Irish Times, 2nd February 2013, page 6. “Eoin was born in moderate condition at 6.35 am on July 30th, 2002, without any inherent defect or genetic abnormality, as the hospital, among various claims, had alleged”. This sentence means the hospital alleged Eoin … “was without any inherent defect or genetic abnormality”. This cannot have been the case; there would have been no proceedings, for the newspaper to report, otherwise. IT SHOULD READ: “Eoin was born in moderate […]
Medical negligence is a serious problem in Ireland. It needs to be treated in a serious manner.
Litigation needs an engine; that is, something must drive the process forwards. For a personal injury victim that engine is, normally, the persistent fact of the injury. From the medical point of view this will imply difficulty coming up with a prognosis. A prognosis is a doctor’s estimate of the progress (or lack of it) expected of the patient.
There are no extensions of time available for victims of medical negligence, unlike victims of road traffic accidents who get extensions of time in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board system.
A plaintiff must prove the defect and damage. The fact of the DePuy “recall” is useful to prove the defect, but it would be necessary to engage an expert in the issue. The damage would vary from case to case, but it is difficult to see how any plaintiff with a DePuy hip would avoid ex-plantation before the expiration of the expected use life of the hips, 10 to 15 years.
Calculate, with the solicitor, the various periods of limitations for the various heads of claim. They are; 2 years for a claim under the Liability for Defective Products Act; 6 years for breach of contract; 2 years for negligence resulting in personal injury. Two or more of these periods are coming to an end. This is a crisis for victims who have not issued proceedings.
What are the actual relevant dates from which time is running?
For negligence claims the date is the date the woman received a letter from the clinic informing her she had PIP breast implants. For breach of contract claims the date is the day of the operation fitting the implants.