The Supreme Court has rejected a time-limit defence in a medical negligence case over an unnecessary hysterectomy, while reducing the plaintiff’s general damages award by €50,000.
Alison Gough sued obstetrician and gynaecologist Michael Neary and Basil Cronin, sued as trustee of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, over a hysterectomy performed during childbirth on 27 October 1992. The High Court found against both defendants. They appealed, arguing that the claim was out of time and that the damages were excessive.
The action began on 21 December 1998. The defendants relied on the Statute of Limitations, but the Supreme Court held that the relevant three-year period ran from when Gough knew, or could reasonably have known, that the operation was unnecessary. The judgment said she had been told it was necessary to save her life and did not learn otherwise until late 1998 or later, following media coverage of Neary and hysterectomies he had performed in connection with childbirth.
The court said knowledge that an operation was unnecessary did not itself mean that negligence had occurred. But in the circumstances, that fact was central to identifying the act alleged to have caused the injury. It dismissed the appeal on the limitation issue, finding that the claim was not barred.
The defendants also challenged the High Court’s €250,000 award for general damages, which comprised €150,000 for pain and suffering to date and €100,000 for future pain and suffering. The Supreme Court accepted the €150,000 for past suffering but reduced the future component to €50,000, citing psychiatric evidence that Gough was likely to make a full recovery when she perceived that justice had been done.
The judgment described the consequences as devastating, including the loss of Gough’s ability to have further children. It set general damages at €200,000 and noted special damages of €23,223.27, producing a total award of €223,223.27. The appeal was allowed only to the extent of that reduction.
The court also discussed the limits of the general-damages “cap” associated with earlier case law. It said the cap was not compulsory where special damages were low, although it could still inform an assessment. The court said its reduction in this case was based on proportionality.