Fairer approach to dealing with patients will benefit all

Medical errors need to be acknowledged upfront so cases can proceed in a just manner

Medical errors occur. When they occur, they need to be acknowledged, both in the direct doctor-patient relationship, but also in formal proceedings lodged in court

Medical errors occur. When they occur, they need to be acknowledged, both in the direct doctor-patient relationship, but also in formal proceedings lodged in court

 

I am a solicitor specialising in medical negligence cases. Before practising in Ireland, I was a partner in a London firm which acted for patients who had suffered from medical accidents, as well as for hospital trusts which were being sued for such events. Before that, I worked as a nurse in one of London’s largest hospitals.

As a solicitor in London, the instructions I received from the hospitals when there had been a culpable misadventure, was to acknowledge it, apologise to the patient and enter into an arrangement to compensate the injured person.

If there was an error, it was better to have it exposed to avoid it being repeated, rather than seek to defend the indefensible. To do that would send a signal that an unacceptable practice was being endorsed. Having acknowledged the wrong, I often found that victims did not bring any claim or if they did, they were far easier to deal with if they had been dealt with in a transparent way from the outset.

My work as a medical negligence solicitor in Ireland is in sharp contrast to my experience in the UK. I have represented patients in Ireland who have had the misfortune to suffer catastrophic injuries as a result of clear medical negligence.

P

ersonal injury summons When a claim is made by service of a p

ersonal injury summons, it is responded to by a notice for particulars, a set of questions raised by the defendant to find out more information about the plaintiff’s case; in fact, the defendants invariably know the answers to these queries which are just an attempt to find out what the patient knows about the events that give rise to the claim. When the defence is eventually filed, one learns nothing from the defence as to what the true position is.

Pleadings facilitate a defendant in finding out what a patient plaintiff knows about the wrongdoing. No focus appears to be upon getting defendants to set out their stall, with some particularity, as to what happened, and why it happened.

It must be noted that procedures often occur when a patient may be under anaesthetic and not know what happened.

It is interesting to observe that section 10(1)(f) of the Civil Liability & Courts Act, 2004 requires a plaintiff to set out: “Full particulars of the acts of the defendant constituting the said wrong and the circumstances relating to the commission of the said offence.” A corresponding obligation on a defendant contained in section 13 merely requires the defendant to set out “full and detailed particulars of each denial or traverse”. There is no obligation to set out details in relation to the “circumstances”.

Legal costs

Hospital representatives complain bitterly about legal costs. I think anybody looking at the system would see the reasons why these costs are accruing. It is simply because of the way these cases are being defended. This is not going to change without statutory intervention.

The Medical Council recognises the need to be candid. The HSE has issued a policy document which signs up to the notion of candour in the hospital-patient relationship. How it works in practice is, I have to say, significantly different, but at least there is a move in the direction of candour. Unfortunately, there is no move in that direction in legislation or in the pleadings that are filed in court.

War of attrition

State Claims AgencyMedical Protection Society

If the hospital had to focus from the outset in setting out what happened, rather than seeking to ascertain what the patient plaintiff knew about what happened, things would be radically different. In short, the truth should out, and this can only benefit all of us.

Pat Daly is a litigation solicitor in Ernest J Cantillon Solicitors

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
GO BACK
Error Image
The account details entered are not currently associated with an Irish Times subscription. Please subscribe to sign in to comment.
Comment Sign In

Forgot password?
The Irish Times Logo
Thank you
You should receive instructions for resetting your password. When you have reset your password, you can Sign In.
The Irish Times Logo
Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.
Screen Name Selection

Hello

Please choose a screen name. This name will appear beside any comments you post. Your screen name should follow the standards set out in our community standards.

The Irish Times Logo
Commenting on The Irish Times has changed. To comment you must now be an Irish Times subscriber.
SUBSCRIBE
Forgot Password
Please enter your email address so we can send you a link to reset your password.

Sign In

Your Comments
We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.