Judgment: 2017-07-18 · Court archive

High Court awards €865,000 for psychiatric injury and related losses

The damages assessment followed the Minister’s acknowledgment that L O’S suffered significant psychological injury as a consequence of his father’s illness and death. The court awarded €150,000 in general damages, along with earnings, pension and future medical costs.

High Court, Court 10 · [2017] IEHC 477

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • L O’S (Applicant)
  • The Minister for Health and Children (Respondent)
What

The damages assessment followed the Minister’s acknowledgment that L O’S suffered significant psychological injury as a consequence of his father’s illness and death. The court awarded €150,000 in general damages, along with earnings, pension and future medical costs.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Maynooth
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Reports for L O’S described post-traumatic stress disorder after his father’s death, followed by chronic dysthymia, recurrent depressive disorder and social anxiety. The judgment records ongoing psychological difficulties affecting his career prospects, social life and relationships. A report for the Minister questioned whether the assessment gave sufficient weight to earlier psychological issues and other difficult events in L O’S’s life. Justice Hanna said he took those matters into account when assessing damages, while also applying the principle that the claimant must be taken as found at the time of the traumatic event.

The High Court awarded L O’S €865,000 in damages after assessing the consequences of a psychiatric injury linked to his father’s illness and death. The assessment took place on 18 July 2017 before Mr Justice Hanna. The Minister for Health and Children acknowledged that L O’S had suffered a major depressive illness as a consequence of traumatic exposure to his father’s death, establishing his entitlement to compensation under the statutory scheme.

The case had previously involved legal proceedings in the High Court and Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a preliminary point concerning the scope of an appeal by way of case stated. The parties then reached an arrangement resolving the legal question, and the matter returned to the High Court for assessment of damages. Justice Hanna said the court did not need to consider the application of the authorities raised at the earlier stage.

L O’S’s father died in November 1993 from Hepatitis C infection following a transfusion of contaminated blood or blood product. The judgment recounts that L O’S was present at his father’s final moments. It also describes the effect on his Leaving Certificate performance and subsequent university studies. He left Maynooth after academic difficulties and later worked in retail, including shops selling marine animals. The court heard evidence from L O’S and professional witnesses, and considered reports from medical experts. The medical experts did not give evidence.

Reports for L O’S described post-traumatic stress disorder after his father’s death, followed by chronic dysthymia, recurrent depressive disorder and social anxiety. The judgment records ongoing psychological difficulties affecting his career prospects, social life and relationships. A report for the Minister questioned whether the assessment gave sufficient weight to earlier psychological issues and other difficult events in L O’S’s life. Justice Hanna said he took those matters into account when assessing damages, while also applying the principle that the claimant must be taken as found at the time of the traumatic event.

The court awarded €75,000 for general damages to date and €75,000 for future general damages. It accepted an actuarial earnings calculation based on potential annual earnings of €52,000, discounted the figures by one third, and awarded €330,000 for loss of earnings to date and €275,000 for future loss of earnings. It also awarded €60,000 for a possible future pension shortfall and €50,000 for future medical expenses. The judgment states that the total award required no further adjustment under Reddy v Bates. It does not specify a separate order for interest beyond noting that Courts Act interest was allowed in calculating the past earnings award.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review