A legal action for damages by an elderly woman who died before her appeal against the dismissal of her case was decided cannot be continued for the benefit of her estate following her death, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Bridget Doyle, Mountbolus, Co Offaly was aged 79 when she underwent surgery at the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital in January 2010 to remove a cataract from her left eye. The surgery was unsuccessful, post-operative complications required removal of that eye in February 2010 to prevent damage to her right eye, and she was fitted with a prosthetic eye.
Further complications arose, requiring further interventions in 2010 and 2012, and this left her often depressed and reliant on family members for care.
In June 2011, she initiated proceedings alleging she had not given informed consent to the surgery and administration of a general anaesthetic. The claims were denied.
When the case opened for hearing in the High Court in late 2012, an issue emerged about her capacity to give evidence. The case proceeded on the basis she was a person of unsound mind not so found, the case title was amended and her son Edward acted as her next friend.
After ajdournments, the case concluded in June 2013 and, in December 2013, Mr Justice Eamon De Valera gave judgment dismissing her claim after finding requirements for disclosure of information to patients in elective surgery were met and no liability could be attributed to the hospital.
An appeal was lodged in January 2014 and in May 2014 a priority hearing was sought as Mrs Doyle was then terminally ill with advanced pancreatic cancer. The appeal was listed for June 3rd on the basis it would take a day but it did not conclude that day and was adjourned to July 31st but Mrs Doyle died on July 11th.
The proceedings were ultimately reconstituted and the Supreme Court directed a hearing on a preliminary issue whether the cause of action survived Mrs Doyle’s death. Her side claimed the claim for general damages survived, plus a claim for some €90,000 for care services provided by Edward Doyle to his mother between February 2010 and May 2012.
Giving the five judge court’s unanimous judgment, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said the Oireachtas clearly intended, under the Civil Liability Act 1961, that a claim for general damages for pain and suffering may not be maintained after the death of the person who sought compensation for that pain and suffering.
She also ruled the claim for care services provided by Edward Doyle for his mother was never properly constituted. While the evidence clearly established he was caring for his mother and she required such care, detail was needed in circumstances including he had cared for her since she suffered a stroke in 1996.
It was “unreal” to suggest delays in the courts sytem were to blame for the matter not being finalised before Mrs Doyle died, the judge said. The High Court hearing was held within two months of an updated letter for particulars, no indication of any problem with Mrs Doyle’s capacity was given before she came to give evidence and it was “not surprising” judgment was reserved.
When a priority appeal was sought, Mrs Doyle was undoubtedly very ill and a hearing date was set for three weeks later. Mrs Doyle’s counsel estimated it would take a day but that turned out to be incorrect and the adjourned appeal was given a priority listing on July 31st.
