The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Bon Secours Hospital’s appeal against a High Court decision allowing Oliver O’Sullivan’s personal injury claim over an MRSA infection to proceed.
The hospital had asked the High Court to strike out the claim as statute-barred. The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal of that application, concluding that the claim was not out of time on the evidence before the court.
Mr O’Sullivan contracted MRSA while undergoing abdominal surgery at the Bon Secours Hospital in Cork on 20 September 2005. He issued a personal injury summons on 19 August 2008 against the hospital and other defendants. The relevant limitation period was two years from when the cause of action accrued or from the later date when he acquired the knowledge specified by the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991.
The hospital argued that Mr O’Sullivan had the necessary knowledge by March 2006, after his mother told him about a television programme on hospital MRSA infections and he contacted a solicitor. It also proposed later dates, including when his solicitor received his hospital records in July 2006. The hospital contended that he knew enough to connect his infection with the hospital and begin investigating a claim.
The Court of Appeal held that knowing he had contracted MRSA in hospital, hearing that others were pursuing claims, and seeking information did not establish that Mr O’Sullivan knew his infection was attributable to acts or omissions by the hospital. The court said the relevant question was when he knew the broad basis of the claim he later made: that specified acts or omissions by the hospital caused his infection.
The court found it reasonable for Mr O’Sullivan to seek expert medical advice. He had sought his hospital records and obtained medical reports. The judgment upheld the High Court’s conclusion that he had taken reasonable steps to obtain advice and that the hospital’s motion should be dismissed.
The High Court had treated 22 February 2007, when a preliminary report from Dr Cummins reached Mr O’Sullivan’s solicitor, as the date of knowledge. The Court of Appeal judge said that, in his view, the final relevant information came with a consultant’s report received on 16 May 2008. That difference did not affect the result: the appeal was dismissed.