Boy’s case against HSE for alleged failure to diagnose hearing problem settled

four courts, dublin

23 February 2022

A 10-year-old boy whose hearing loss was allegedly not picked up for four years has settled a High Court action for €175,000.

Stephen Connor had a hearing test at Mayo General Hospital in 2013 when he was aged two, but that test was allegedly inadequate and he went undiagnosed as suggesting hearing loss until 2017, the court heard.

Hugh O’Keeffe SC, with Doireann O’Mahony BL and Damien Tansey Solicitors LLP, told the court the boy is among a cohort of children identified in a Health Service Executive (HSE) review of western audiology services between 2011 and 2015.

The HSE later apologised for failures identified in the review of paediatric audiology services in Mayo and Roscommon. It found that, out of 995 cases examined, 49 children had been affected. Of these, 13 patients were retested and identified as having a hearing loss.

Stephen Connor, of Turlough, Castlebar, Co Mayo, had through his mother, Michelle Connor, sued the HSE for allegedly failing to provide adequate audiological assessment and management to him and allegedly delaying the diagnosis of his hearing impairment.

The settlement is made without an admission of liability.

It was claimed Stephen’s mother had been concerned but she was told Stephen’s hearing was perfect when he was referred to the audiology services at Mayo General Hospital.

Five months later, in October 2013, had further audiological assessments and his hearing was deemed normal.

It was claimed the testing carried out was totally inadequate and that the boy’s hearing was recorded as normal despite allegedly clear evidence of speech delay and parental concern.

Three years later the boy failed school hearing screening tests in the right ear and had borderline results in his left ear.

He was again referred to the audiology services and he was seen in April 2017 where he was found to have hearing loss in both ears, although greater in the right than the left.

It was alleged Stephen had been deprived of the opportunity of gaining earlier management of his hearing impairment which would have given him full access to the speech spectrum and improved his language acquisition during that time.

Counsel said that while the boy’s hearing loss is not severe it is significant as to its effect.

All the claims are denied.

Mr Justice Paul Coffey approved the settlement, which he described as fair and reasonable.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Autistic cinema manager wins €12k over discrimination in roster row

An autistic cinema manager who quit when his employer was unable to guarantee him two days off in a row following a months-long dispute over rostering arrangements has secured €12,000 in compensation for disability discrimination. The complainant's wife gave evidence...

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...