The Supreme Court has upheld a finding that the State negligently failed to diagnose and treat an Army veteran’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a timely manner, while reducing his damages for pain and suffering from €300,000 to €150,000.
The appeal was brought by the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General against a 2008 High Court judgment. The High Court had found the defendants liable for failing to respond appropriately to psychological injuries the plaintiff suffered during a tour of duty in Lebanon beginning around October 1986, and for the delayed diagnosis and treatment after his return. It awarded total damages of €305,523, including special damages, after a 28-day trial.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 30 July 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal grounds concerning the conduct of the trial, alleged objective bias, the limitation period and the trial judge’s findings of fact. It acknowledged that the trial judge’s frequent interruptions were excessive, irritating and added significantly to the trial’s length. However, it concluded they did not prevent the defendants from presenting evidence or pursuing lines of questioning, and did not make the trial unfair. It also found no factual basis for the claim that the trial judge should have recused himself.
The defendants argued that the claim was out of time because PTSD had been mentioned to the plaintiff as a possibility in 1994. The Supreme Court held that this did not give him the relevant knowledge for limitation purposes: his claim concerned the alleged failure to diagnose and treat PTSD promptly, rather than the events that caused the condition. The Court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the claim was not statute-barred.
On the evidence, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s negligence finding was supported by credible evidence. It accepted that earlier diagnosis and treatment could have reduced the severity or duration of the plaintiff’s condition.
The Court nevertheless considered the damages excessive in two respects. The plaintiff had improved considerably by 2004, and the judgment did not identify a proper basis for awarding damages for loss of vocation or employability where he had remained employed and made no claim for loss of earnings. It reduced the €270,000 awarded for past pain and suffering to €150,000. It also removed the separate €30,000 award for future pain and suffering, finding no finding on the likelihood of recurrence and treating ongoing flashbacks as covered by the award for suffering to date.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds except the damages award. The Supreme Court substituted €150,000 for past and future pain and suffering; the source does not state the resulting total award.