The High Court awarded Claire Lalor €139,434.87 in damages after the National Maternity Hospital admitted liability for a swab left in her vagina after childbirth, failures to detect it during two examinations and a C. difficile infection linked to antibiotic treatment.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2015, Mr Justice Cross assessed damages following the admissions of liability. The judgment says Lalor made no complaint about the pregnancy or the circumstances of the birth. The court’s assessment concerned the injuries and consequences linked to the admitted negligence.
Lalor returned to hospital in January 2013 with pain and a persistent smell after giving birth in December. She received antibiotics during two visits, but the swab was found and removed during a third visit on 16 January. She later developed C. difficile and was treated at Beaumont Hospital. Doctors also investigated possible pulmonary embolism, but none was found; she nevertheless took anticoagulant medication for six months.
The judge accepted that Lalor suffered severe physical distress and continuing psychological effects. He preferred the evidence of her psychiatrist, Dr Paul McQuade, who diagnosed a chronic adjustment disorder, over that of the hospital’s psychiatrist, Dr Sheehan. Cross found that the hospital’s negligence triggered her later difficulties, while also taking account of her prior vulnerability and other contributing factors. He accepted that her outlook was good and that counselling could help.
The award included €100,000 for physical and psychiatric injuries to date and €25,000 for future general damages. The court allowed €10,000 for additional private health insurance costs, assessing this at about four years of extra premiums rather than for life. With €4,434.87 for loss of earnings and other special damages, the total was €139,434.87.
Cross rejected a separate claim for possible future insurance costs related to another C. difficile infection. He accepted medical evidence that Lalor faced no greater risk of reinfection than another member of the public, and that the prior infection would not justify an insurer refusing cover.