A WOMAN who contracted Hepatitis C through receiving infected blood or blood products was awarded £251,900 yesterday on the first day of hearings at the Government's compensation tribunal.
Two other women received £120,808 and £35,000 respectively as the tribunal began hearing the cases of women who were infected since 1970 as a result of blood transfusions or blood products administered by the National Blood Transfusion Board.
The solicitor representing the three women, Mr Dave Coleman of Lavelle & Coleman, said last night all three were "delighted" with the awards.
But members of Positive Action, the support group for infected women which has over 700 members, are still holding off applying to the tribunal. The organisation says the tribunal is "flawed and unfair".
The compensation tribunal, chaired by Mr Justice Egan, was set up last September as part of a Government package to compensate and treat more than 1,500 infected women.
Just 100 have applied for compensation so far, however, because of concerns over the procedures to be adopted by the tribunal.
Well over 400 are understood to have lodged High Court writs against the Minister for Health and the Blood Transfusion Service Board in relation to their cases.
Positive Action wants guarantees that doctors who have treated those affected can be heard by the tribunal; that witnesses can be compelled to give evidence; that provisional awards can be given as of right, allowing people to return for more money at a later date if their health deteriorates further and that the tribunal will remain in existence for a lengthy period.
Mr Coleman said last night he was "cautiously optimistic" about the tribunal, but it was too early to say if it was a success. Those whom he wanted to call as a witness had been heard, and the tribunal had made it clear "that it will act reasonably".
Up to yesterday the tribunal had heard just two emergency bearings - both related to terminally ill women.
One was awarded £50,000 and the other received a slightly smaller amount. Both are understood to have had other complicating factors contributing to their illnesses, and so the awards only related to the Hepatitis C elements of the illness. One has since died.
Those receiving an award from the tribunal are entitled to reject it and take an action in the High Court if they are dissatisfied.
The tribunal plans to sit for four days a week until further notice.
Its proceedings are confidential to protect the anonymity of the victims. Mr Coleman gave some details of the cases yesterday.
The £251,900 was awarded to a Dublin woman in her 40s who is likely to develop cirrhosis of the liver and has suffered hair loss, thyroid problems and other health complications.
She was awarded £140,000 for pain and suffering, and a further £111,900 special damages covering loss of earnings, the cost of home help and travel.
A woman from the south east, infected in 1977, received £35,000 as a one off payment. She is hepatitis free, and is not expected to develop grave problems such as cirrhosis.
The third case was of a Dublin woman who sought a provisional award and received £120,808. The tribunal was told she had a possibility, rather than a probability of developing cirrhosis. She suffered tiredness and depression and had gained weight. She had moved from full time to part time working.
She was given £50,000 to compensate for pain and suffering, and £70,808 special damages covering issues such as loss of earnings and pension rights.
All three had their legal costs awarded.