The High Court dismissed Kathryn Singleton’s negligence claim against the Health Service Executive over a blood test taken after a doctor suffered a needle-stick injury during her hospital procedure in 2003. The court found that Singleton understood why the test was requested and gave full, free and informed consent. It also found she had not established a recognised psychiatric disorder arising from the incident.
Singleton was a day patient at St Columcille’s Hospital for a facet joint injection on 1 May 2003. She alleged that, while emerging from sedation, she was pressured into signing consent for a blood test and was not properly told what had happened. She said the episode caused distress and affected her relationship with her husband and her confidence in medical treatment. The hospital denied liability and argued that the test was properly explained and consented to.
The evidence was disputed. Singleton’s anaesthetist, Dr Bernard Nally, said he explained that Dr Hugh Gallagher had sustained a needle-stick injury and that blood testing was part of the response. He recalled Singleton as awake and alert, and said she specified that her GP should not receive the result. A signed consent form recorded agreement to testing for HIV and hepatitis and restricted who would receive the results. An expert called for Singleton said there was a high likelihood that the effects of the sedative Propofol could still have impaired her ability to make an informed decision. The defence anaesthetist considered her alertness and ability to converse and write consistent with capacity to consent.
The judge accepted the evidence of Nally, Gallagher and the defence anaesthetist. A GP record from the day after the procedure was also significant: it noted that Singleton had been told a doctor had pricked himself with her blood. The judge found that she understood the reason for the test and was capable of giving consent. The court also found inconsistencies in her account, including her denial that she and her husband had attended the GP the next day.
The court accepted the defence psychiatric evidence that, although Singleton was vulnerable and may have experienced anxiety, she had not proved a recognised psychiatric illness caused by the incident. It also rejected her claims that the episode delayed her pain treatment, finding that she chose to move her care to another hospital and that the delay was not the defendant’s responsibility.
The judgment, delivered on 10 May 2018, dismissed the claim. It did not award damages.