Boy, 11, awarded €35k for cuts on face allegedly suffered during birth

Counsel alleges newborn was cut with scalpel during C-section, which is denied by the National Maternity Hospital

The hospital maintains the medical management of the birth was in accordance with widespread, general, and approved medical practice.

An 11-year-old boy whose face was allegedly cut during birth has settled a High Court action against the National Maternity Hospital.

Approving a €35,000 settlement, Mr Justice Paul Coffey told Leo Quinn he could barely see the scar on his mid forehead, which extends down his nose.

The judge said it was a fair and reasonable settlement, which is without an admission of liability.

Leo’s counsel Doireann O’Mahony BL, instructed by Damien Tansey solicitors, told the court that when Leo was delivered there were a number of cuts on his face that all healed up, with the exception of one on his mid forehead, which has left a 2cm-long scar.

She said it was alleged the baby had been cut with a scalpel during surgery but the hospital later in its defence of the pleadings denied that a scalpel had caused the cut and said it could relate to an artificial rupture of membrane procedure a number of hours earlier.

Scar not very noticeable

Counsel said liability remains very much at issue in the case. She agreed that the scar is not very noticeable.

Leo Quinn, Dunmore Grove, Kingswood, Dublin, had through his mother Jacqui Quinn sued the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin.

Leo was delivered by emergency caesarean section on June 6, 2011, and was overall in good condition.

It was claimed he allegedly suffered a significant incision, a midline laceration on the forehead extending on to the nose, as well as cuts under his right eye and to the left of his nose.

It was also alleged that the site of the injury indicated the baby was in the lower segment of the uterus and allegedly not presenting.

Alleged failures

It was claimed there was an alleged failure to exercise the care, competence, judgement, and skill to be expected in the management of the delivery of the baby.

It was further claimed that the baby was caused to sustain significant — and avoidable — facial scarring.

The claims were denied and the hospital maintained that the medical management of the birth was in accordance with widespread, general, and approved medical practice.

The hospital denied that a scalpel had caused a laceration as the scalpel during a C-section could not have accessed the baby’s face during the procedure.

It claimed that it was more likely the injury occurred about eight hours before the C-section during the use of an amnihook instrument as part of an artificial rupture of membrane procedure.