A DUBLIN woman who lost her High Court case when she sued, two doctors at the Blackrock Clinic for medical negligence following a lung operation also failed yesterday in her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ms Elizabeth Bolton (52), Ardagh Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin was ordered to pay 14 days' legal costs of the 19 day hearing in the High Court in 1994. Yesterday the costs of the appeal were also awarded against her.
The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal against the High Court decision that neither Dr Joseph Cummiskey, Mr Alfred Wood nor the Blackrock Clinic, Co Dublin, were negligent and that in terms of both treatment and diagnosis, both doctors had acted with the utmost care.
Ms Bolton had claimed she had an unnecessary and unwarranted operation - a sleeve resection - on her left lung in March 1988. The following August she had her lung removed.
Yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the first surgery was elective in that it was up to her to decide and consent. Clearly, there was an obligation on Mr Wood, the cardio thoracic surgeon, to explain to Ms Bolton the necessity for the operation and provide all information.
Regarding the information given prior to the operation, the High Court judge accepted Mr Wood's explanation. The evidence established that Mr Wood informed Ms Bolton of the nature of the surgery. The trial judge was also satisfied Ms Bolton was informed of the risks and that the consent given to the operation was an informed consent.
Ms Bolton, in her appeal, claimed the judge erred in law, failed to take into account all the evidence and afforded undue weight to the doctors' evidence simply by virtue of their professional position.
The Chief Justice said the matter of the credibility and reliability of witnesses was for the High, Court judge and not for the Supreme Court. It would be quite improper for the judge to prefer one witness over another because of professional position.
Mr Justice Hamilton said he was satisfied the judge carefully considered the evidence of all the witnesses and did not pay improper regard to the testimony of doctors, or afford undue weight to their testimony.
The only question for the Supreme Court was whether the judge's findings were supported by the evidence before him.
The trial judge's finding that "in terms of both treatment and diagnosis both doctors acted with the utmost care" was supported by the evidence.
Ms Bolton also claimed that not enough investigations and tests were carried out.
The Chief Justice said he was satisfied the advice and information given by Mr Wood to Ms Bolton prior to the operation was not in any way flawed by failure to carry out any investigations additional to those carried out by him and Dr Cummiskey. The judge's finding that Ms Bolton's consent was a fully informed consent was supported by the evidence.
With regard to the removal of the lung in August 1988, it was common case that this operation was necessary because of the recurrence of the narrowing of the bronchial tube.