The High Court has dismissed a woman’s medical negligence claim against the Health Service Executive and Kerry General Hospital over the treatment of a haemorrhage after the birth of her daughter in 2012.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2019, Mr Justice Cross found that the hospital’s response could have been faster, but that the plaintiff had not proved the delay amounted to professional negligence. He therefore dismissed the case and did not need to decide whether the delay caused additional loss.
The plaintiff gave birth at Kerry General Hospital on 28 May 2012. After delivery, she suffered significant bleeding and a haematoma. The court recorded that blood loss before she was transferred to theatre was estimated at 1,000 to 1,500 millilitres, with a further approximate 1,000 millilitres lost during the operation.
The plaintiff’s case was that the defendants failed to act quickly enough once the bleeding was identified. Her expert, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, considered the care unacceptable because she was not moved to theatre by 4.01pm. She was transferred at 4.37pm. The expert said an earlier transfer would likely have reduced blood loss and trauma.
The defendants’ expert said the treatment followed accepted practice for a regional hospital at the time. The court accepted that evidence, including that staff communicated the problem, provided resuscitation and monitoring, and tried measures to control the bleeding before the decision to operate. The defendants’ expert agreed that a major maternity unit might have acted more quickly, but considered the treatment acceptable.
The judgment also addressed the plaintiff’s psychological injuries. The judge found that she met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and that her psychological distress continued. But the court’s finding on injury did not establish liability: the judge concluded that the plaintiff had not shown that practitioners of equal skill and status, acting with ordinary care, would not have responded as the defendants did.
The judge said it was likely that an earlier transfer would have reduced blood loss and probably psychiatric trauma, but described that assessment as speculation and unnecessary given the liability finding. The court made no finding that the defendants were negligent and did not determine causation. The claim was dismissed.