The Court of Appeal has dismissed Paul Hegarty’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim against Mercy University Hospital Cork Limited over information he said he was given during treatment in 2007.
The appeal concerned care between 6 February and 5 April 2007. Hegarty had surgery for ulcerative colitis, followed by further operations and repeated procedures to treat an abdominal infection. A pelvic swab later tested positive for MRSA. The hospital isolated him and treated him with antibiotics. He was discharged after three successive negative test results.
Hegarty alleged that the hospital failed to explain the complications following his first operation and did not properly tell him what the positive MRSA result meant or inform him of later negative results. He said he suffered severe distress and anxiety, but did not claim a specific psychiatric illness.
At the High Court trial, the judge found that Hegarty had been given relevant information about his complications and that hospital staff had told him about the MRSA results, including negative tests. She accepted the evidence of treating doctors and rejected evidence from Hegarty and family witnesses on disputed conversations and communications. She dismissed the claim, finding no negligence or breach of duty and that damages were unavailable without a recognised psychiatric injury.
On appeal, Hegarty challenged factual findings and the trial judge’s handling of a doctor’s evidence about a conversation with Hegarty’s partner and sister outside his room. That evidence had not been put to the two witnesses during their initial cross-examination. They were recalled and denied the conversation had happened. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to admit the evidence and allow the witnesses to address it, and to prefer the doctor’s account.
The appeal court said the trial judge had given detailed reasons for her findings and that the evidence supported them. Applying the principles governing appellate review of trial findings, it said it was not the appeal court’s role to retry the factual disputes. It also noted that the parties agreed the hospital had responded correctly to the positive MRSA test by isolating and treating Hegarty, and that he was already receiving a drug appropriate for MRSA.
The court further concluded that, even if the alleged misinformation had been established, the claim as advanced could not succeed without a recognised psychiatric injury. It said the appeal would require extending damages to distress and anxiety falling short of such an injury, and found no basis to do so. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s dismissal of the claim in place.