A DUBLIN plastic surgeon denied in the High Court yesterday, that he was negligent when he performed a breast reduction operation on a woman 12 years ago.
Mr Seamus O Riain is being sued by Ms Veronica Dunleavy (53), a mother of five from Newbridge, Co Kildare, who told the court she felt mutilated after Mr O Riain performed an operation on her in 1984 to reduce the size of her breasts.
Asked by Mr Jack Fitzgerald SC, for Mr O Riain, what was his belief about the way he operated on Ms Dunleavy in March 1984, the surgeon replied: "I honestly think at the time I did tide best operation for the problem.
Mr O Riain said he did not accept in any shape or form that there was negligence. "There was no negligence," he told the court on the third day of the hearing.
Asked if as a plastic surgeon he could guarantee the result of the breast reduction procedure, he replied: "No, unfortunately."
A number of factors influenced the outcome of such an operation, he said. One of the main factors was post operative shrinkage. He thought this might have been a factor in Ms Dunleavy's case.
He believed Ms Dunleavy would have continued to have pain if she had not had the operation.
Asked by Mr Fitzgerald if he believed Ms Dunleavy had cause to be disappointed with the operation he replied: "I think it is a very disappointing result."
Mr O Riain said he believed something could be done now to improve things. There were now implants which could be adjusted after the operation.
When Mr Fitzgerald said Ms Dunleavy said in evidence that she did not want anything put" into her breasts now, Mr O Riain said he believed she could be persuaded to have the operation done.
He believed that the markings for the operation were in the right position. But, in hindsight, he believed he removed too much breast tissue.
Cross examined by Dr John Coughlan SC, for Ms Dunleavy, Mr O Riain said it would be explained to the patient during the first consultation that there would be scars after the operation and where those scars would be.
While he could not remember the specific operation on Ms Dunleavy, no complication arose making it necessary to remove more breast tissue than had been discussed. He did not recollect saying he was going to do the maximum possible reduction.
Mr O Riain said that at the end of the operation, when both breasts were sewn up, he meticulously examined the symmetry of the breasts.
His intention had been to do as big a reduction as was feasible in relation to Ms Dunleavy's breasts.
In reply to Dr Coughlan, Mr O Riain said he knew just how careful he was when performing operations and in so many operations his skills had been proven. He believed he was influenced by considerations of the patient's discomfort to go to the limit and he believed at the time he stopped short of taking too much tissue.
The hearing continues today before Mr Justice Moriarty.