or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court dismisses professional negligence claim against the HSE in respect of the response to the plaintiff's breast screening, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the HSE had not been negligent where the plaintiff’s cancer was a true interval cancer and had therefore showed normal or benign features in the screening mammogram; (b) the HSE therefore acted appropriately in not identifying the plaintiff for clinical recall following her screening; and (c) the question of causation therefore did not arise.
Professional negligence proceedings concerning national screening service BreastCheck - plaintiff's mammogram in June 2015 referred to two radiologists, neither of whom thought that the plaintiff needed to be clinically recalled - plaintiff diagnosed with breast cancer in November 2015 and underwent chemotherapy and had all lymph nodes in right armpit removed and mastectomy of her right breast - following mastectomy plaintiff had radiotherapy - contended by plaintiff that if her cancer had been diagnosed at the time of mammogram she would have had a mastectomy but not undergone chemotherapy and radiotherapy and would only have required sentinel node biopsy, and would not have suffered from side effects including lymphoedema- plaintiff also claiming that her life expectancy would have been improved - correct standard of care for clinical negligence claims determined by the profession and not by the court - no issue concerning adoption of a common practice with inherent defects that ought to have been obvious - expert evidence from consultant radiologists as to relevant standard - other expert evidence - whether defendant was negligent - whether radiographer met the correct standard of care in recording her conversation with the plaintiff - whether radiologists met the correct standard of care in reading the plaintiff's mammogram from June 2015 - whether cancer was in fact present in June 2015 and, if so, whether it would have been diagnosed had the plaintiff been clinically recalled.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.