‘They said she was the only one, then Vicky Phelan happened’

6 January 2022

A man whose wife died from cervical cancer more than five years ago has told the High Court that, when she was in hospital, CervicalCheck visited her and asked her not to go public about her case.

“CervicalCheck visited her in hospital and asked her not to go public,” Cathal Curtis told Mr Justice Paul Coffey.

“They said she was the only one, then Vicky Phelan happened.”

He said if there was no Vicky Phelan case, the case of his wife Michelle Silke Curtis would have broken the CervicalCheck controversy.

Mr Curtis was speaking as he settled the action his wife started over the alleged misinterpretation of four of her smear slides.

Mother-of-two and nurse Michelle was 45 when she died in 2016, one year after she was diagnosed with Stage 4 cervical cancer.

The settlement against the HSE, two laboratories and a GP, was without admission of liability. The terms are confidential.

The Curtis family counsel Oonah McCrann SC with Sara Antoniotti BL instructed by Valerie Corcoran solicitor, told the High Court there was a “catalogue of tragic errors” and it was an enormous distress to Ms Silke Curtis that her case was not finalised before her death.

Her grieving widower Cathal told the judge he feels “quite insulted” by the behaviour of the defendants in the case and said they had agreed to settle but “Michelle sadly died”.

He said it has taken five and a half years to get to the point where the settlement could be ruled by the court. He said their lives have been stalled and, 10 weeks after Michelle’s death her father Bill Silke died.

“The shock of the cancer diagnosis, it broke his heart,” he said.

Referring to the litigation his wife had started, he said: “She said to a family member: ‘It has ruined my life. It has ruined my husband’s life’.”

Mr Curtis who sat in the witness box of Court One in the Four Courts said he was infuriated that it took four years to be told that a US laboratory had tested some of his wife’s smear tests.

He said he struggles as a lone parent to his daughters Annie and Sarah.

“Michelle was a lovely lady and mother who just wanted to be a stay-at-home mom.

“I hate Mother’s Day now and Valentine’s Day.

“I struggle hugely being a solo parent. I love my kids but I have to make every decision as a sole parent,” he said.

Mr Curtis of Oranmore, Co Galway, had sued the HSE, Medlab Pathology Ltd with offices at Sandyford Business Park, Dublin; US laboratory Clinical Pathology Laboratories Inc with offices at Austin, Texas and GP Saber Elsafty of Cappagh Road Surgery, Cappagh, Road, Galway.

The case related to four cervical smear tests taken between 2010 and 2012 which it was claimed were allegedly misinterpreted and misreported.

In September 2007 Ms Silke Curtis, it was claimed, had a smear test but unbeknown to her the sample was reported as borderline with advice to refer further.

It was claimed Dr Elsafty failed to inform Ms Silke Curtis of the result or to advise her and follow up on the report.

Three years later in November 2010, Ms Silke Curtis had a smear test under the National Cervical Screening Programme and it was sent to the MedLab laboratory for testing.

Atypical squamous cells were reported to be present with a follow-up smear advised for six months later.

In May 2011 Ms Silke Curtis had a repeat smear which was reported by MedLab as negative but in view of the previous abnormal result she was advised to have another test in six months.

In November 2011 she had another repeat smear test which was also reported negative by MedLab and a repeat smear was recommended for six months later.

In their defence delivered in 2019, three years after her death, the HSE and Medlab advised that the samples taken in November 2010, May 2011 and November 2011 were interpreted and reported on by the American laboratory Clinical Pathology Laboratories (CPL) which is based in Texas.

All the claims were denied by all defendants.

In September 2012, Ms Silke Curtis had a further repeat cervical smear test which also came back as negative and she was told by letter she would be advised of her next routine smear test in three to five years. Three years late in June 2015, she was diagnosed with a cervical tumour.

If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.

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...