Neary appeal ruling - No justice as law prolongs victims’ pain
That is particularly true of the Supreme Court case in which a lawsuit taken by a patient of disgraced former obstetrician Dr Michael Neary was yesterday dismissed on appeal because it was statute barred.
Women across the country will be dismayed by the verdict which has negative implications for 60 or 70 other former patients who are suing the notorious doctor on grounds that unnecessary obstetric operations were performed on them at Our Lady’s. On foot of yesterday’s ruling, the fear is that other cases may also be statute barred.
For Cavan woman Rosemary Cunningham, the feeling of disappointment could not be deeper. It was only last year that she won the right to sue Dr Neary in the High Court for unnecessarily removing her left ovary in 1991.
Her hopes rose briefly when a High Court judge ruled the three-year limit began when Ms Cunningham became aware in April 2001 that the operation was unnecessary.
However, that verdict was appealed in the Supreme Court by Dr Neary and representatives of the Medical Missionaries of Mary, the order which runs Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. Yesterday, a three-judge panel found in their favour.
Following one of the worst scandals to rock the Irish health system, the infamous surgeon was struck off the medical register a year ago when he was found guilty of professional misconduct for removing the wombs of 10 patients.
In a further significant development, a judicial inquiry last month began to put Dr Neary’s work over the last three decades under the microscope. He rejects the allegations levelled against him.
For Rosemary Cunningham, the chronicle of events leading up to yesterday’s verdict could hardly be more disheartening.
She had taken her case against the rogue doctor in March 2002, four years after making her initial complaint to the Medical Council. However, the Supreme Court judges have now ruled that the three-year period for taking legal action had passed when she made this complaint. In other words, under the law, her claim was out of time.
While other cases in the pipeline are expected to be within the time-limit, several may yet be ruled out in the wake of yesterday’s judgment.
It has to be asked if the victims would have taken legal proceedings at an earlier date if the Medical Council had acted with greater speed in this appalling chapter of Irish medicine.
As Mr Justice Fennelly put it yesterday: “If the plaintiff had gone to a solicitor in December 1998 [after she made the medical council complaint], she would have obtained the sort of advice which would have made out a case of negligence against the defendant.”
Further compounding the time lapse problem, victims say they had an assurance from Health Minister Micheál Martin that the three-year statutory clock would only start ticking when the consultant was struck off the list.
There can be no doubt the assurance was offered in good faith. But if anything, this increases the obligation on Mr Martin to remedy an error which has proved so costly for Rosemary Cunningham.
He should now move swiftly to set up the compensation redress board which has long been sought by the victims of this horrific scandal to ensure justice is done.
