The Supreme Court allowed an appeal in a medical negligence case over the removal of a woman’s ovary, ruling that her claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Court decided a preliminary point of law; it did not determine whether the ovary’s removal was negligent.
The plaintiff said that a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist removed her ovary during an operation at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda on 15 August 1991. She accepted that removal of a fallopian tube was necessary to treat an ectopic pregnancy, but alleged that removing the ovary was unnecessary. The consultant disputed her account of his conduct, according to counsel, but that dispute was not for the Court to decide on this appeal.
The plaintiff said she asked the consultant why the ovary had been removed and received no explanation. Her GP later told her that the removal had been necessary, and she said she relied on that advice. In December 1998, after a nurse encouraged her to complain, she wrote to the Medical Council. Her letter recounted her questions about the ovary and referred to other women’s complaints about the consultant. She consulted a solicitor in May 2000. An independent obstetrician’s report in April 2001 advised that the removal had been unnecessary. She began proceedings in March 2002.
The limitation law provides a three-year period running from the injury or, if later, the injured person’s date of knowledge. The Supreme Court accepted that the plaintiff could reasonably rely on her GP’s earlier advice. It held, however, that by December 1998 her unanswered questions about the operation, together with what she had learned of other complaints, made it reasonable to seek medical or other expert advice.
The Court concluded that, had she sought advice then, the fact that the ovary’s removal was unnecessary could have been established. The law therefore treated her as having knowledge of that fact by 19 December 1998, even though the expert report came later. The three-year period had expired before proceedings began.
Allowing the appeal, the Court determined the preliminary point in favour of the defendants and held that the claim was barred under section 3 of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991. It directed that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed.