The Supreme Court has dismissed a hospital’s appeal arguing that a patient’s MRSA infection claim was brought too late. The Court concluded that Oliver O’Sullivan’s date of knowledge for limitation purposes was no earlier than 20 August 2006, meaning his personal injuries summons, issued on 19 August 2008, was within the applicable two-year period.
O’Sullivan alleged that he contracted MRSA during surgery at Bon Secours Hospital on 20 September 2005 because of the hospital’s negligence and breach of duty. He was told on 4 October 2005 that he had contracted the infection during the surgery. The hospital disputed the timing of his relevant knowledge and sought to have the proceedings struck out as statute barred.
The High Court rejected the hospital’s application. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, dismissed its appeal. The hospital then appealed to the Supreme Court. The sole issue was whether O’Sullivan’s date of knowledge under the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991 was on or after 20 August 2006.
The Supreme Court judgment explained that the statutory test concerns knowledge of the relevant facts, including the factual acts or omissions alleged to have caused the injury. It does not require knowledge that those facts amount to negligence as a matter of law. The Court also distinguished actual knowledge from knowledge that may be imputed where a person could reasonably have been expected to acquire relevant facts, subject to the statutory protection for someone taking reasonable steps to obtain expert advice.
The agreed facts showed that O’Sullivan contacted a solicitor in March 2006 because he wanted to find out what had happened and what had gone wrong. He obtained 800 pages of medical records in July 2006. The records included a swab report recording “MRSA (heavy growth) isolated”. The hospital accepted before the Supreme Court that the records did not, by themselves, disclose broad knowledge of any act or omission alleged to constitute negligence.
The Court was satisfied that before 20 August 2006 O’Sullivan did not have the required factual knowledge of the alleged causally relevant acts or omissions. It also agreed that he had taken reasonable steps to obtain and act on expert advice, so there was no basis to impute earlier constructive knowledge. The judgment stressed that whether medical records or expert advice are needed will depend on the facts of each case.
The Court dismissed the hospital’s appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision. It did not decide the later date on which O’Sullivan acquired the relevant knowledge, because it was sufficient to conclude that it was after 20 August 2006. The underlying negligence claim was not determined by this appeal.