Case News

Tormeys Solicitors settle cancer misdiagnosis case

Tormeys Solicitors settle cancer misdiagnosis case

Tormeys Solicitors acted on behalf of the Plaintiff in this Medical Negligence action which involved a misdiagnosis of breast cancer. The First Named Defendant was a Consultant Surgeon with a breast speciality and the Second Named Defendant was his employer.

The circumstance of the case were that the Plaintiff was referred by her G.P. to the First Named Defendant with a history of a lump in her left breast which had increased in size and a family history of her grandmother having suffered from breast cancer. The Plaintiff first attended with the First Named Defendant on the 29th August, 2007. The First Named Defendant subsequently wrote to the Plaintiff’s G.P. outlining that the Plaintiff had lumpy breasts but that there was nothing to worry about. No mammogram was carried out.

The Plaintiff attended with the First Named Defendant for a second time on the 7th March, 2008 when she was assured once again that the lumps were benign.

On the 4th June, 2008 the Plaintiff, who was concerned that everything was not in order with her breasts, organised for a mammogram to be carried which revealed that she was suffering from breast cancer.

The Plaintiff had to undergo extensive treatment following her diagnosis and when the matter was listed for hearing in November, 2011, the Plaintiff had been told by her consultant Oncologist that her prognosis was very poor and she had mere months to live.

The Plaintiff was the mother of a young daughter and was concerned about the future care of her child in light of the fact that the child’s father had accepted no responsibility for his child and was not paying maintenance. With this in mind, the Plaintiff’s child was added as a Co-Plaintiff to the proceedings and a sum of €135,00.00 was assigned to her in respect of her future care costs. This sum was to be lodged in court for the benefit of the child and the child was to be made a ward of Court.

The Plaintiff’s case was also settled for an undisclosed sum.

As the Plaintiff’s child was a minor it was necessary for the court to confirm that it was satisfied that, in the circumstances, the sum was adequate. Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, when ruling the child’s terms of settlement, granted an application made on behalf of the Plaintiff preventing the publication of the identities of the parties in the case due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s family were unaware of her diagnosis and her poor prognosis.

Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill ruled the settlement sum herein and noted the settlement was a prudent one.