The Court of Appeal has dismissed Mary Healy’s appeal against the High Court’s rejection of her negligence claim over treatment for a pituitary tumour, upholding findings that her endocrinologist was not negligent in prescribing Sandostatin LAR or obtaining her consent.
The appeal concerned treatment provided by consultant endocrinologist Dr Brendan Buckley between 1995 and 2001 at the Bon Secours Hospital. Ms Healy had been diagnosed with a pituitary tumour in 1982 and underwent surgery and later radiation treatment. In 2000, tests showed excess growth hormone. Dr Buckley recommended monthly injections of Sandostatin LAR, which Ms Healy accepted.
She began experiencing vomiting and diarrhoea after her first injection. In January 2001, she was admitted to hospital with severe vomiting, diarrhoea and other symptoms. The Court of Appeal said it was later known that hypothyroidism, identified during that admission, was a side effect of the drug. The judgment said that effect was not known at the time of the treatment.
At trial, Ms Healy argued that the prescription and subsequent management were negligent, and that her consent was not informed. She said Dr Buckley knew she mistakenly believed most of the tumour had been removed in 1982, and that he had failed to explain that scans showed it had not significantly changed since 1995. She also argued he should have set out other treatment options, including doing nothing, and their risks and benefits.
The High Court rejected the claims. It found the drug was appropriately prescribed in light of the growth hormone results and expert evidence, and that Dr Buckley gave warnings about the then-known risk of gastrointestinal upset. It also found he did not know of Ms Healy’s misunderstanding about the tumour and had not misled her about its growth.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defendants’ endocrinology experts and that the findings on treatment were supported by the evidence. It also upheld the finding that Dr Buckley was not negligent in relation to consent. The court said he was not obliged to discover Ms Healy’s mistaken understanding when there was nothing to indicate it to him, and that the law could not be changed retrospectively to impose a newer standard of consent.
The court dismissed the appeal. It did not make a new finding of liability or award damages.