Man settles High Court case for €6m over five-month delay in diagnosing his brain tumour

Medical Negligence

15 June 2022

A man who sued over a five-month delay in diagnosing his brain tumour when he was a teenager has settled his High Court action for more than €6m.

During the five months, the court heard, his mother “besieged” Cork University Hospital (CUH) for help for her son, who was then 14 but is now 20.

Her son, who cannot be named by order of the court, was first referred to CUH by his GP after he complained of fatigue and that his left hand was “useless“ and would not work.

He was also complaining of migraine, it was claimed, and that he found it hard to concentrate.

His counsel Oonah McCrann said the family were told the problems were psychological and functional and the boy was referred to the mental health services and physiotherapy.

Counsel said the mother has been left “hugely traumatised” over her dealings with CUH as she tried to get answers for her son.

Five months after the teenager’s first visit to the hospital, counsel said, his mother “effectively then took the law into her own hands” and arranged for a private MRI scan for her son which showed a deep seated slow growing tumour in his brain.

He had brain surgery within days of the scan, but he has been left with life long deficits, counsel said.

Mr Justice Paul Coffey was told the  HSE admitted negligence in relation to the delay in the diagnosis of the tumour.

However, it contended the five-month delay did not impact the outcome.

Outside court the man’s solicitor, Karen Kearney, said it was a very sad case that underlined the importance of doctors listening to their patients and their families.

Mr Justice Coffey was told that separate actions brought by the man’s parents over the events had also been settled and could be struck out

It was claimed that up to September 2015 he was a very active teenager who spent a significant amount of time engaged in sports.

In September 2015 it was noted he was feeling quite fatigued and he was not using his left hand and was starting to hold it behind his back.

It was claimed he awoke one morning to find his left hand would not work and his hand was in a fixed fist position and had a deformed appearance.

His parents became concerned and he was brought to a GP and the boy was referred for a neurological assessment through the emergency department at CUH.

It was claimed he was reviewed by a number of medical personnel . He presented with persistent clawing of the left hand and complaining of migraine. He was also very tired and sleeping a lot.

Despite these symptoms, it was claimed, the teenager was not referred for a scan but instead a diagnosis was made that his issues were functional and psychosomatic. He was discharged and referred to the mental health services and physiotherapy.

Over the next number of months, it was claimed, his condition deteriorated significantly. It was claimed that during this time the boy’s mother contacted CUH personnel on numerous occasions and in November 2015 she called in to the hospital without an appointment and asked that her son’s file be reviewed again.

The boy’s GP also contacted CUH, it was claimed, to try to bring the boy’s problems to their attention but it was alleged neither the concerns of the boy’s mother nor those of the GP were followed up on.

His condition and lack of concentration continued to alarm his family. On February 23, 2016, his mother brought him back to CUH and relayed his worsening condition including involuntary twitching in his left foot to medical personnel.

His mother expressed her extreme concern and requested her son have a scan. It was claimed the teenager was not sent for a scan and advised he continue with physiotherapy.

In desperation, it was claimed, the boy’s mother returned to her GP and obtained a referral for a scan at a private hospital. The MRI scan on March 3 confirmed the presence of a brain tumour and he was urgently referred to hospital and had brain surgery on March 7, 2016.

Mr Justice Coffey approved the €6.1m settlement and wished the very best to the young man and to his parents.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

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,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

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...