Judgment: 2008-01-31 · Court archive

High Court awards €150,000 over negligent hip operation

The court found an orthopaedic surgeon negligent in a 1997 hip replacement and awarded damages for past and future pain and suffering.

The High Court · [2008] IEHC 248

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Margaret O’Connor (Plaintiff)
What

The court found an orthopaedic surgeon negligent in a 1997 hip replacement and awarded damages for past and future pain and suffering.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Tralee General Hospital
  • Tralee
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court awarded Margaret O’Connor €150,000 in damages after finding that an orthopaedic surgeon was negligent in carrying out her artificial right hip operation. The award comprises €100,000 for pain and suffering to date and €50,000 for future pain and suffering.

The High Court awarded Margaret O’Connor €150,000 in damages after finding that an orthopaedic surgeon was negligent in carrying out her artificial right hip operation. The award comprises €100,000 for pain and suffering to date and €50,000 for future pain and suffering.

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice de Valera on 31 January 2008, concerned an operation at Tralee General Hospital on 27 November 1997. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the surgeon failed to ensure the femoral cortex had not been perforated, allowed cement to escape through a perforation and fixed the artificial joint in a misaligned position.

The defendants had denied negligence and disputed that the claimed pain and disability resulted from the operation. The judge accepted evidence from the plaintiff and her medical experts that her ongoing pain and disability were directly caused by the failure to carry out the hip operation properly.

O’Connor underwent a second operation in January 1999 and a third, described as a “strut allograft” procedure, in June 2000. The judge found the third operation had been necessitated by the failure of the earlier procedures to resolve her problems. He said that, had the first operation been carried out correctly, neither later operation would have been necessary.

The judge also found that the surgeon had not disclosed the true purpose of the second operation, describing this as unacceptable. However, he was satisfied that O’Connor would have agreed to the procedure if its purpose had been explained. The judgment therefore records that finding but does not attribute the need for the second operation to lack of disclosure.

The court said future revision surgery would be required even if the first operation had been successful, but that the negligence had brought it forward somewhat. It awarded €50,000 for future pain and suffering on that basis. No special damages were claimed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review