THE similarities between Brigid McCole and Mary Quinlan are striking. Both have large families; both were infected with hepatitis C in 1977 through contaminated antiD; both began their High Court actions at the same time; in their decision to go the court route both were fought almost every step of the way by the State and its agencies.
Mrs McCole died last October, a week before her case was due to be heard. Since then there have been many expressions of regret about the manner in which it was handled. But these ring hollow when one observes the disturbing similarities in the way the Quinlan case is being conducted.
This case will be heard in the High Court on July 1st. Despite being exceptionally ill, the mother of eight from Co Carlow will attend the Four Courts.
Mrs Quinlan, who has serious liver damage, has said in the past that, however sick, she "wants to walk out of that case with pride and dignity". She is suing the State, the Minister for Health, the Blood Transfusion Service Board and the National Drugs Advisory Board for aggravated damages. She has chosen to continue with her court action and does not wish to go to the compensation tribunal.
So far the way has been paved with difficulties for Mary Quinlan. One of the latest is the fact that the findings of the Finlay report on the hepatitis C tribunal are not admissible, despite the Minister for Health saying that he accepts the findings.
This refusal will mean a much longer, more expensive case. All the evidence heard during the almost 30 days which the tribunal sat will have to be rehashed because it is not admissible.
Last week in a letter to the Minister for Health, Mrs Quinlan, whose children range in age from 21 to four, asked if it was Government policy to make the rest of her life, or that of anyone taking a similar court action, as difficult as possible.
The case, if it goes ahead, will establish legal precedent in this area. At present people who go to the compensation tribunal receive a payment of 20 per cent for aggravated damages on top of their ordinary award. Legal sources believe it is unlikely that an award for aggravated damages for Mrs Quinlan would go above 20 per cent. But there is a risk that it may.
Mrs Quinlan has opted for the High Court route. One of her first difficulties was obtaining her medical records from the BTSB - it took 40 requests in court.
In the McCole case there has been much controversy about crossovers in the legal strategies of the three defendants.
These have been consistently denied by the Minister for Health. It is known that in the Quinlan case the BTSB's legal team and the State's legal team cooperated when the Chief State Solicitor was provided with a copy of the BTSB's defence.
Mr Noonan said in a statement this week that this was "normal legal practice".
Like Brigid McCole, Mrs Quinlan has undergone just one medical assessment and the report has been shared by all the defendants. This was carried out more than a year ago by Prof Donald Weir, a consultant gastroenterologist, who also assessed Mrs McCole.
Last October, following Brigid McCole's death, the BTSB admitted ordinary but not aggravated damages in the Quinlan case. In November Mrs Quinlan received a letter from the Chief State Solicitor, representing the Minister for Health, asking her to discontinue her action against the State and the NDAB.
Now Mrs Quinlan's legal team are seeking an admission of liability from the Minister for Health on behalf of his Department, or an admission of negligence, which would recognise the Department's responsibility to pay ordinary or aggravated damages.
They are also seeking this from the NDAB, which they argue is a State agency under the control of the Department of Health.