Author Archives: Edward McGarr
Accidents are confusing. Meeting the unexpected (or just the unwelcome) is disturbing. Many personal injury victims have difficulty orienting themselves after an accident. For some, the difficulties are greater than others. Some accidents are more unexpected than others. Road accidents are relatively common, whereas to be hit by an object falling from a defective building is very unusual.
The main problem with defective DePuy hips is the design failure. The hip will fail mechanically. This is a serious matter. Instead of ease of movement, the hip will hinder movement. Movement will be painful, probably noisy, and anything but smooth.
It is essential to know that the Injuries Board has no role in the DePuy hip scandal. If a victim lodges an application to the Injuries Board, it is a mistake. The Injuries Board will, in due course, reject it. Worse than that, time will continue to run against the plaintiff while the application is being made and considered. In short, it is a waste of valuable and scarce time.
A friend tells this writer that the Minister has authorized a seismic survey off the west coast of Ireland. The survey involves months of work. The work includes the creation of loud noises in pulses every fifteen seconds. This will go on for the duration of the survey.
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.
This is exactly what has been determined by the Irish and Finnish reports; it is probable that Pandemrix caused the cases of narcolepsy appearing in young people who got the vaccine.
The liability, in law, for this is clear. The services delivered to these patients were subject to the implied terms of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980. The production of Pandemrix triggered the terms of the Liability for Defective Products Act 1990.
That’s the theory; but, if there are no lawyers in DEPUYLAND, who is to alert the patients to the existence of their right to make a claim?
Why did such a doctor not read, presumably, a leading professional journal in his/her specialised field?
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.