The High Court has found Mercy University Hospital Cork Limited liable in negligence after a patient lost his left testicle following recurrent hernia surgery in January 2010. The court concluded that unduly vigorous handling of the spermatic cord during the operation damaged the artery supplying the testicle.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Herbert on 5 February 2014, awarded the plaintiff €55,000 for general damages to date, €20,000 for future general damages and €526 in agreed special damages. The court noted that, although the plaintiff was off work for about three weeks, no claim for lost earnings was made.
The plaintiff underwent urgent surgery at the hospital on 19 January 2010, after scans indicated a potentially strangulated hernia. A surgical registrar, Mr Mohsin, performed the operation under the direction of consultant surgeon Mr O’Sulleabhain. The court accepted that urgent surgery was required that day because the suspected condition could become life-threatening.
The plaintiff said he developed severe pain after the operation. The court found that his left testicular artery became progressively obstructed, causing the testicle to shrink and eventually die. It considered and rejected several possible causes, including an overly tight suture, use of diathermy near the spermatic cord, pressure from swelling or a postoperative haematoma. It found that the pattern of pain and the medical evidence supported gradual artery damage during the operation.
The court did not identify the precise movement that caused the damage, finding that it would be almost impossible to do so. It held that the damage resulted from unduly vigorous handling of the spermatic cord, which was substandard in the absence of any excusing circumstances. The hospital was responsible for the acts or defaults of the operating team.
The plaintiff had also raised questions about whether surgical risks were explained and when he signed the consent form. The judge made no finding on those questions. He said they did not need to be decided because, even if consent had been obtained below the proper standard, the plaintiff would probably still have agreed to the urgent operation, so a causal link to the injury had not been established on that basis.
The court found that the loss caused some psychosexual erectile dysfunction and disfigurement, while noting the plaintiff’s decisions not to attend a clinic, take prescribed medication or have a prosthesis. The judgment records no claim for loss of earnings.