Tagged: Medical Negligence
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.
Errors in assessment (barring a constitutional action yet to come) cannot result in claims against the Injuries Board, but that is very likely not true of the doctors working for the Injuries Board/respondents.
What a pity the court failed to make clear whether the Plaintiff had made an error by applying to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board for an authorisation to issue proceedings against the Defendant or not.
The frequency with which patients are injured in Irish hospitals is very high. The current estimate is of 160,000 per year. Who knows the exact figure? Presumably, the Health Service Executive does. If it does, why is that information not made public? If it does not know, why does it not know? Let us assume that the HSE is a competent body and infused with goodwill towards the patients. Would it not be a good idea to try to eliminate […]
I imagine the reason for this is the tendency for failures to detect bone damage in x-rays to come to light by the pathetic return of the patient to the hospital with exacerbated injuries from neglect of the original injury.
This is good. It is good for two reasons; firstly, the Council’s ruling (although not entirely selfless) will allow injured persons to access legal advice promptly after an error (and retrieve evidence before it is lost).