The High Court has refused to dismiss a medical negligence claim brought by A, a young man with disabilities, against the Health Service Executive and Cork University Maternity Hospital. But the proceedings are stayed until A delivers an amended personal injury summons setting out a narrower, more precise case.
In a judgment delivered on 29 November 2024, Ms Justice Hyland said a recent report from paediatrician Dr Fogarasi was “extremely borderline” but just sufficient to support a stateable claim that delayed removal of a line inserted in A’s left leg caused injury to his foot. The court therefore refused the defendants’ application to dismiss the proceedings as disclosing no cause of action or being bound to fail.
The judge stressed that the report had significant gaps and unclear reasoning. She said it did not clearly explain when either line should have been removed, what signs required removal, or how infection caused injury. The report’s suggestion that problems with medical notes were a breach of duty did not identify an injury caused by that alleged breach.
The court excluded material in the report about cardiac issues because the adjournment had been granted only to obtain evidence on the pleaded claims, and no application had been made to amend the statement of claim to add a new cause of action. The judge also said the existing pleadings included claims, including that treatment caused A’s autism, for which the report provided no medical support.
Under section 10(3) of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, the proceedings are stayed until an amended summons gives full particulars of the alleged wrong and each instance of negligence. The amendment must rely on the most recent Fogarasi report and include only negligence alleged to have caused A’s foot injury. The court gave A three months from the judgment to deliver it and adjourned the matter to the personal injuries list on 14 March 2025 for further orders. The judge said representation would also need attention if the case proceeds: A may instruct a solicitor or appear with his mother assisting as a McKenzie friend under the relevant practice direction.
The court also made a litigation restriction order under its inherent jurisdiction. A, his mother and anyone purporting to act for him must obtain prior permission from the President of the High Court or a delegated judge before bringing further proceedings against the defendants arising from medical treatment on any date after A’s birth. The judge said the restriction followed repeated litigation concerning A’s birth and subsequent treatment, and was intended as a permission filter rather than an outright bar on access to court.
The defendants were awarded 75% of their costs, with a stay on those costs until 14 March. Either party could contest the costs order by written submissions due by 13 December; absent submissions, the order would be made on that date.