The High Court has dismissed a couple’s medical negligence claim over the reporting of scans taken before M.L. was diagnosed with advanced ovarian cancer, finding that radiologist T.Q. had not failed to meet the required standard of care.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2019, Mr Justice David Keane said the plaintiffs had not proved negligence in T.Q.’s conduct of an abdominal ultrasound in March 2016 or his report on a pelvic MRI scan taken in June that year. The judgment does not go on to decide whether negligence caused the damage claimed or assess compensation: the court said those questions depended on first establishing negligence.
M.L. and her partner, K.A., had sought damages from T.Q. and two companies providing MRI services. M.L. alleged that the June 2016 MRI showed signs of ovarian cancer that were missed, delaying diagnosis and leaving her with more advanced disease. K.A. claimed loss of the personal, physical and emotional relationship he would otherwise have had with her. All defendants denied negligence. At trial, the claim was pursued in substance against T.Q. alone; the plaintiffs had withdrawn their allegation that the companies failed to produce a sufficiently suitable image.
The scans followed complaints including urinary pressure and abdominal bloating. T.Q. reported the March ultrasound and June MRI as normal, with no identifiable cause for M.L.’s symptoms. She was diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer in November 2017. The court heard conflicting radiology evidence: the plaintiffs’ expert, Professor Graham Whitehouse, considered features of the MRI suspicious, while T.Q. and the defendants’ expert, Professor Leo Lawler, said the ovarian appearances were within normal limits.
Justice Keane preferred the evidence of T.Q. and Lawler. He said they assessed the images against objective criteria and accepted guidelines, while Whitehouse’s assessment was more impressionistic and was made with knowledge of M.L.’s later diagnosis. The judge said he could not be satisfied that Whitehouse had avoided hindsight bias.
The court found no failure of care by T.Q., no departure from general or approved practice, and no use of a practice with an obvious inherent defect. Applying the principles in *Dunne v National Maternity Hospital*, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not proved negligence and dismissed the claim.
The judgment also records a non-identification order under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. It prohibits publication or broadcast of material likely to identify M.L. The court used random initials or letters for all parties, noting that identifying defendants who operated in the area where the plaintiffs lived could contribute to identifying her.