The Supreme Court dismissed a midwife’s appeal against a High Court ruling that a patient’s negligence claim over serious brain injuries was not barred by the Statute of Limitations. It affirmed the ruling on the limitation issue and said it was unnecessary to decide whether the patient should have been allowed to amend her reply.
The case concerns a pregnancy in 1993. The patient, Angela Fortune, had engaged Cliona McLoughlin, a registered midwife, to provide care with the intention that the birth would take place at home. On 7 June, Fortune suffered convulsions and lost consciousness. Her partner called an ambulance, and she was taken to Holles Street Maternity Hospital in Dublin, where her baby was delivered by caesarean section. After further seizures, she was transferred to Beaumont Hospital and remained there for about four weeks.
Fortune alleges that she sustained serious brain injuries during that period, leaving permanent brain damage and intellectual impairment, because of McLoughlin’s negligence. Her claim includes an allegation that the midwife failed to monitor her adequately and respond to signs of pre-eclampsia. Those allegations are denied in the defence; the Supreme Court was considering limitation issues, not deciding liability for the alleged negligence.
The proceedings began in 2000. McLoughlin pleaded that they were out of time. At a preliminary trial, the High Court held that Fortune’s claim was not barred. It found that she had not known her injuries were attributable to the midwife’s alleged acts or omissions. The judge also found that the effects of her injuries had prevented her from acquiring relevant knowledge.
The Supreme Court held that awareness of the injuries and the events surrounding the birth was not enough. The relevant statutory test required knowledge of a connection between the injury and the conduct now complained of, sufficient to prompt an inquiry into whether that conduct caused the injury. The judgment said Fortune did not make that connection. Even when she later suspected negligence, she initially attributed blame to the hospital, and the midwife’s alleged role came to light only after records were obtained and independent medical advice was received.
The Court also upheld the High Court’s finding that the effects of the injury prevented Fortune from acquiring relevant knowledge. It therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling that the claim was not statute-barred. It did not determine whether the midwife was negligent or whether the amendment to Fortune’s reply had been properly allowed.