Challenge to woman's refusal by Neary redress scheme fails

A WOMAN whose womb and ovaries were removed by struck-off obstetrician Michael Neary has lost her High Court challenge to a decision refusing her compensation under a redress scheme for women upon whom Dr Neary performed unnecessary procedures.

The decision by the Lourdes Hospital Redress Board refusing redress to Anne Weldon (58), Bremore Road, Balbriggan, Co Dublin, was based on reports from two medical advisers to the scheme who concluded the procedures performed on her in June 1990 were warranted, as she had a history of ongoing endometriosis.

In proceedings against the Minister for Health and Children and the board, Ms Weldon argued the board failed to consider her application in line with fair procedures.

She claimed the board did not have adequate records available to it, as her records from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, to which Dr Neary was attached, were not available. The board had relied on records from her GP, which were limited, she claimed.

She further complained the board failed to consider a report by her own medical expert, Dr Roger Clements, which stated the procedures were not warranted, before making its decision refusing redress in August 2008.

The respondents denied any breach of fair procedures and argued Ms Weldon, despite four requests from the board, continuously failed to get an independent medical report to the effect the procedures performed on her were not medically warranted when such a report was a condition for eligibility for compensation. The board then commissioned its own advisers to examine her case, it said.

It was argued Ms Weldon only obtained Dr Clements’s report after being informed of the results of the other two reports. It was claimed Dr Clements’s report was hearsay, and he had failed to examine the records of Ms Weldon’s GP, which set out the fact she had undergone years of treatment for endometriosis.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, High Court president Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns dismissed Ms Weldon’s case. He found her claim was “without merit” and that the board had in fact gone beyond what was required in affording her fair procedures.

He said Ms Weldon was given ample opportunity to make her case and was informed, in order to be eligible for compensation, she had to have medical reports to the effect the procedures performed on her were unnecessary. When she failed to do so, the board commissioned two reports from its own experts which found the procedures were warranted.

Ms Weldon did nothing to bring herself within the scheme until she was told her claim was denied, after which she obtained the report from Dr Clements, he said.

The judge also upheld arguments that delay by Ms Weldon in bringing her judicial review proceedings disentitled her to relief.

These proceedings were not brought until May 2009, after the board had been wound up and outside the three-month limit for judicial review, he noted. No reasonable explanation had been provided for this delay, the judge held.