Suing a Surgeon

Agonist

A surgeon operated on a minor, long term, problem. Before the procedure there was no question of risk. It was presumed by all to be a simple repair of a problem that had few symptoms. Due to one of those symptoms exacerbating a pre-existing illness the decision was made to operate. No disclaimer was signed.

In the first week of recovery out became obvious that the surgery had failed and it became clear that the approach taken could never have worked and was risky.

Subsequently, follow up surgery was attempted to try to patch the whole thing up. The surgeon had lost interest at that stage: no pre op advice; a refusal to answer the patient's questions; no post op interview. As the surgeon had probably expected, the operation was a failure.

Now the patient has a mass of scar tissue, a wound that won't heal, a permanent infection and the original problem still remains.

A couple of questions:

Firstly, is this too minor to bring to court? Do you have to lose a limb or, in the case of a friend who won in court, end up with a colostomy bag?

Secondly, what can you sue for? This
case has only cost the patient a few 100E in expenses. Are pain and suffering, being misled by the doctor, disappointment and frustration, damage to the sex life, restrictions on certain sporting activities and more measured by the court in monetary terms?

Thirdly, do doctors stick together and make it impossible to win against them?

And lastly, would a family lawyer be adequate or should a specialist be sought? Do no foal no fee lawyers exist here?

Thanks for your time. I hope this isn't seen as looking for specific legal advice. Broad, general answers will be fine. I just wanted to give a bit of context.

littlemac1980

Speak to your family solicitor about this. They will be able to advise you generally on what's involved - even if they don't have the expertise to take on the case - they will in that event likely recommend someone who does.

It's impossible to say what the case is worth - but Courts do quantify compensation for pain and suffering, based on many of the things you mentioned and many more.

No foal no fee arrangements are possible, it's a matter for each solicitor to agree with the particular client, but - particularly in these type of cases - there are expert fees which will need to be paid regardless. A solicitor would have to explain and advise you on the exact meaning of No Foal No Fee before you agreeing to engage them on such a basis. Its not as simple as "You win - You pay/You Lose - You Don't"

Medical Negligence cases are typically very complex and expensive to pursue, but that's not always the case.

I don't believe anyone can say that Doctors stick together more than any other profession. The likelihood of success would have more to do with the facts of the case, which obviously would need to be fully examined by a solicitor and relevant experts before advising you on how you might fare.

seamus

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I don't believe anyone can say that Doctors stick together more than any other profession.

Consultants in particular certainly used to be very reluctant to overrule or contradict another consultant where it was a question of negligence.

But that was back when the consultants in Ireland were a small clique of mostly Irish men, who were afraid of being ostracised by the group for testifying against a colleague. It's less of a case now where the group is more disparate.

However, often consultants are brought in from overseas to give an expert opinion as the community of consultants in Ireland is still quite small. Especially where the surgery is very specific and only done by 3 or 4 doctors in country, you'll have difficulty finding an Irish doctor who'll testify against a colleague/friend, even if they know they've screwed up.

Bepolite

The problem is frequently that they didn't screw up but the myriad of factors involved resulted in a different outcome to the one predicted. My (limited) understanding is that people within the medical profession are slow to overrule each other in the main because, given the situation it's possible, if not likely, that they may have taken the same course of action.

That said as with any profession I'm absolutely sure there is an element of covering each others behinds.

Pat Mustard

OP, I suggest the following:

1. Get an experienced personal injury solicitor who is willing to deal with this case. Maybe your family solicitor has plenty of personal injury experience, I don't know. If he or she is reluctant to take on the case for any reason, perhaps somebody else can be recommended.

2. The Statute of Limitations governs the limits for actions. In my view, compared to ordinary personal injury cases, it takes a long time to prepare medical negligence cases so as to properly assess the chances of success and risks of failure. Therefore, I suggest that you should get professional advice sooner rather than later.

Cody Pomeray

seamus wrote: »

But that was back when the consultants in Ireland were a small clique of mostly Irish men, who were afraid of being ostracised by the group for testifying against a colleague.

Back when? I hope you're being sarcastic...!

Consultant Hospital Doctors are notoriously protective of one another, in my opinion. Why do you think med neg lawyers routinely have to bring in experts from the UK, even where we have quite enough consultants working in their area of expertise here? It's shamful, which should be a word, if it is not a word.

drkpower

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Back when? I hope you're being sarcastic...!

Consultant Hospital Doctors are notoriously protective of one another, in my opinion. Why do you think med neg lawyers routinely have to bring in experts from the UK, even where we have quite enough consultants working in their area of expertise here? It's shamful, which should be a word, if it is not a word.

It is not so much that they are protective of one another. Irish doctors will regularly provide critical evidence against fellow consultants. It is rather that many are reluctant to have to give evidence in public against fellow professionals who they will typically know quite well, who they will probably meet the following week at a conference. Most sub specialties in Irish medicine are made up of quite few consultants. I don't think we can criticise that too harshly; not too many of us would relish having to criticise in public the actions of our colleagues, and given the option to do would politely decline. I know I would (except perhaps the most egregious of cases).

That is especially so when one of the constituent factors in many (perhaps most) medneg claims are systemic factors. Consultants are particularly loathe to criticise others where the defect in the treatment provided was at least in part caused by a systemic issue. As it is often difficult to clearly separate the systemic factors and the personal treatment errors, most potential consultants witnesses can often see how it is only the benefit of good fortune that they themselves are not at the end of that particular legal action.

But having said all that it is becoming more common to see Irish experts appearing as witnesses against other Irish doctors. It would still be a minority of cases, but it's prevalence is increasing, probably as Irish consultant numbers increase and the personal connections between consultants become less prevalent.