The High Court has adjourned a motion by Letterkenny General Hospital and the Health Service Executive’s Northwest Area to dismiss a birth injury claim, giving the plaintiff three months to assemble expert evidence and provide detailed particulars of his case.
In a judgment delivered on 30 March 2017, Ms Justice Baker said the claim had been progressing for about ten years but the plaintiff did not have a suitable medical expert opinion to support the allegation of negligence. The court also found that the pleadings gave little detail about the alleged failures or the damages being claimed.
The plaintiff, born in 1986, has cerebral palsy and profound physical disabilities. His personal injury summons, issued in March 2007, alleges negligence in the management of his birth. The specific allegations include that excessive drugs were given to his mother to induce labour and that no doctor was present at the birth. These are allegations, not findings in this judgment.
The first and second defendants sought dismissal under the court’s inherent jurisdiction and section 10 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Justice Baker described the particulars as generic and said the plaintiff had not supplied a report from an expert qualified in neonatal paediatric practice. The only report discussed in the judgment was from a person who, according to the plaintiff’s solicitor, had said a paediatric neurologist’s report was needed on resuscitation. The solicitor said his practice could not fund further reports, estimated to cost at least €15,000.
The court also noted the absence of detailed special damages particulars, including information supporting a claim for loss of earnings. Replies to particulars suggested changes to the house where the plaintiff lived with his mother might cost no more than €10,000. That figure was presented as an estimate in the replies, not as an award or finding.
Justice Baker acknowledged the plaintiff’s serious disability and limited financial means. She also observed that the defendants had moved slowly at points and that documentary records relating to the birth might remain available. The judgment said the delay and lack of preparation weighed in favour of dismissal, but the court was prepared to give the plaintiff an opportunity to put his case in order.
The motion was adjourned for three months. The plaintiff was to assemble expert evidence and reports and provide full, detailed particulars of his injuries and alleged negligence. Unless the first and second defendants formally agreed to a modular trial, he was also to provide particulars of loss. The judgment did not dismiss the proceedings or finally determine the motion. It does not state what happened after the adjournment.