The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment awarding hospital administrator Christine Carroll €311,953.39 in her negligence action against surgeon Vincent Lynch and ordered a retrial, finding that the original trial was not conducted fairly to both parties.
The case arose from surgery on 5 June 1996, when Lynch performed video assisted thoracic surgery on Carroll for a pneumothorax. After a vessel was lacerated and bleeding began, he changed to an open thoracotomy. Carroll’s claim focused on the placement of the second surgical port. She alleged it had been placed in her breast, causing the injury and the need for the more extensive procedure.
At the 2002 High Court trial, Mr Justice Johnson found Lynch liable, subject to a 15% reduction, and awarded Carroll €311,953.39 plus costs. He accepted evidence that the port had been placed in the breast and that the negligence led to the thoracotomy. The judgment also recorded Carroll’s evidence of continuing pain and reduced ability to work.
Lynch appealed, challenging the trial judge’s handling of his self-representation, the finding that he had produced an altered operation note, the expert evidence and the liability and damages findings. Carroll cross-appealed the 15% reduction.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Keane on 15 May 2003, said there was no evidence to justify the trial judge’s finding that Lynch had deliberately falsified the operation record to mislead the court. The disputed mark was on Lynch’s photocopy, among other markings he had made while reviewing his notes. The court said he could have been genuinely confused about whether it appeared on the original.
The Supreme Court also criticised the trial judge’s warnings about possible criminal prosecution and his treatment of Lynch’s failure to put a later explanation about the port to an expert during cross-examination. It said the judge’s conclusion that this showed “nothing short of dishonesty” was disproportionate. Although the court acknowledged the difficulty a retrial would create for Carroll, it concluded that the trial was unsatisfactory and that a retrial was necessary to ensure objective fairness to both sides.
The court allowed Lynch’s appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and ordered a retrial. It made no order on Carroll’s cross-appeal. It did not decide the remaining grounds concerning liability or damages.