The High Court has refused an application by two defendants to have an actor and comedian’s medical negligence claim ruled out as time-barred. The ruling concerned only a preliminary limitation issue; it did not decide whether the defendants were negligent or determine the underlying claim.
The plaintiff, Edward Naessens, sued Nicholas C. Jermyn and Niall O’Higgins over his treatment for adenoid cystic carcinoma in his left parotid gland. He alleged failures in the 1994 surgery and subsequent follow-up, including a failure to diagnose a recurrence earlier and to provide appropriate advice or treatment. He claimed that the delay deprived him of earlier intervention and led to more extensive surgery and additional pain and suffering. Those allegations remain claims, not findings in this judgment.
The judgment records that the tumour recurrence was diagnosed in January 2001. Naessens underwent further surgery in February 2002 and later received radiotherapy. The defendants argued that he had the necessary knowledge by early 2001 at the latest, so the three-year limitation period had expired before he issued proceedings in December 2006. They relied on his concerns about recurrence, his research into the illness and the differences in follow-up between St Vincent’s Hospital and St James’s Hospital.
Naessens said he had relied on reassurance from his treating team and initially understood the more intensive treatment at St James’s to reflect that he was being treated for a recurrence. He testified that an Irish Times article in December 2003 prompted him to question whether his earlier treatment had been inadequate. After discussing the matter with a barrister friend, he consulted solicitors in April 2004. He then obtained expert reports before issuing proceedings.
The court accepted that Naessens was intelligent and had gathered substantial information about his illness, but found that this did not establish when he connected the more extensive 2002 surgery with the alleged earlier failings. The judge concluded that, for a long period after the surgery, he had not made that connection and that the evidence did not show otherwise. The court also rejected the argument that the 2001 recurrence diagnosis alone gave him the necessary knowledge to investigate a claim.
The court held that the claim was not statute-barred and refused the defendants’ application. The preliminary ruling leaves the negligence allegations and the underlying personal injuries claim undecided.