Margaret Byrne v Andrew Heffernan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kearns P.
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 424
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 September 2014

[2014] IEHC 424

THE HIGH COURT

[No.11367P/2009]

Byrne v Heffernan & Brennan

BETWEEN:

MARGARET BYRNE

PLAINTIFF

AND

ANDREW HEFFERNAN and THOMAS BRENNAN

DEFENDANTS

Damages - Personal Injuries - Alleged negligence, breach of duty and/or breach of contract - Negligent misdiagnosis – Schizophrenic - In-patient at St. John of God”s Hospital - Allegations of assault, battery, physical/ emotional abuse, false imprisonment - Breach of constitutional rights - Notice of motion - Statute-barred - Statute of Limitations - Inordinate and inexcusable delay - Alleged prejudice - Risk of unfair trial

Facts The plaintiff, Margaret Byrne, claims that many years ago she was negligently misdiagnosed as schizophrenic by the second named defendant, Dr Thomas Brennan, when she was an in-patient at St. John of God”s Hospital. As a result of this misdiagnosis she contends that she was subjected to assault, battery, physical and emotional abuse, false imprisonment and that her constitutional rights were violated. From a very young age the plaintiff suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her older brother. She was disbelieved when she attempted to inform a neighbour of the abuse. As a result of the continuing distress she attempted, on numerous occasions, to take her own life. She informed hospital staff of the abuse and it was arranged that she meet with Dr Brennan. The plaintiff told the Court that after speaking to her brother, Dr Brennan disbelieved her allegations and told her that she was very sick and that “her mind was playing tricks on her”. As a result of this diagnosis, a total of 55 courses of ECT treatment were administered to the plaintiff over the course of her time in the hospital. In 1992 the plaintiff was transferred to adult services and came under the care of Dr Eadbhard O”Callaghan who informed the plaintiff that in his view she did not suffer from any mental illness. Medical records indicate that in Dr O”Callaghan”s opinion the plaintiff had not displayed any symptoms of schizophrenia in the past four years. Between 2003 and 2004 the plaintiff received all of her medical records after she submitted a “Freedom of Information” request. She told the Court that she had a number of questions surrounding her initial diagnosis and the treatment she received, particularly in light of Dr O”Callaghan”s diagnosis. After making enquiries, a meeting was arranged with Ms Jane McEvoy, who was the Director of Services at the defendant hospital. In November 2002, the plaintiff first consulted a solicitor in relation to her time in the hospital and legal proceedings confined to the sexual abuse were commenced on the 15th September 2005 and were eventually settled. In 2007 the plaintiff attended a number of consultations with Dr Paul McQuaid who prepared a medical and psychiatric report. Following receipt of this report, a solicitor”s letter in relation to the present proceedings was sent to the defendants on the 3rd December 2008, following which the personal injuries summons issued on the 15th December 2009.

Held The judge carefully considered the evidence. He concluded the plaintiff”s date of knowledge was before the commencement of the 2004 Act and that a 3 year limitation period therefore applied. He said it was clear from the various records that the plaintiff had serious concerns in relation to her diagnosis at a very early stage. In August 2001 she was seeking an apology from Dr Brennan and sought a meeting with the Director of Services in an attempt to gain answers to the many questions she had in relation to her treatment. She was also contemplating consulting a solicitor around this time and subsequently did so in November 2002. The judge stressed it is incumbent upon legal professionals to alert clients to various procedural requirements and matters such as the Statute of Limitations. He did not accept that the option of pursuing a claim in negligence for misdiagnosis emerged only after analysing Dr McQuaid”s report in 2007. The plaintiff made very clear in her evidence that she had made her solicitor fully aware of her belief that she had been misdiagnosed and that something had gone wrong in relation to her treatment. She described feeling frustrated that the “system and her family” continued to disbelieve her and said she informed her solicitor in order to find out what legal options were available to her. The judge concluded the Statute began to run when the plaintiff consulted her solicitor in November 2002. In addition to what she already knew as evidenced in the records, the plaintiff had the benefit of legal advice which must be presumed to include knowledge of the Statute and the need to take appropriate legal steps to protect her interests.

-In light of this, the judge concluded the plaintiff”s claim was statute barred.

1 JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on the 19th day of September, 2014

2 The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries arising from the alleged negligence, breach of duty and/or breach of contract on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff alleges that many years ago she was negligently misdiagnosed as schizophrenic by the second named defendant when she was an in-patient in St. John of God's Hospital, represented in these proceedings by the first named defendant, and that as a result she was subjected to assault, battery, physical and emotional abuse, false imprisonment, and further, that her constitutional rights were breached.

3 By notice of motion the defendants seek an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it is statute barred by reason of the operation of the Statute of Limitations and in the alternative seek an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court dismissing the claim on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay which it is claimed has given rise to prejudice to the defendants and the risk of an unfair trial.

BACKGROUND

4 The plaintiff was born on the 3 ^rd December, 1967. She has eight siblings, four older and four younger. The plaintiff told the Court that from the age of nine years old she was sexually abused in the family home on a continuous basis by an older brother. When she was approximately fifteen years old she reported the abuse to a neighbour but was disbelieved. As a result of the distress and fear of the abuse, coupled with the frustration at being disbelieved, the plaintiff attempted to take her own life when she was approximately sixteen years old and was admitted to hospital as a result of self poisoning. She informed the staff at Loughlinstown Hospital of the abuse and it was arranged that she meet with the second defendant Dr. Thomas Brennan at the first defendant's hospital, St. John of God. The plaintiff told the Court that after speaking to her brother, Dr. Brennan disbelieved her allegations of abuse and told her that she was very sick and that "her mind was playing tricks on her".

5 The plaintiff gave evidence of her time in St. John of God Hospital and stated that her circumstances went from bad to worse following ber admission. The other patients at the hospital were primarily adults with serious mental illness. She recounted to the Court memories of being pinned to the ground by staff and sedated when she attempted to 'escape' from the hospital. The plaintiff described feeling utterly powerless and and alone and says that she eventually gave up trying to 'beat the system' and became withdrawn and refused to speak to anybody. While the plaintiff does not recall specifically being told that she was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, she recalls a family meeting when her parents were told of this diagnosis by a medical registrar. Her family was told that she was a danger to herself and others and weekly meetings were arranged with her parents to discuss how to deal with her illness.

6 As a result of this diagnosis, a total of 55 courses of ECT treatment were administered to the plaintiff over the course of her time in the hospital. She recalls this as a terrifying ordeal whereby she was strapped to a gurney and sedated. An apparatus was placed in her mouth to prevent her from swallowing her tongue. When she regained consciousness she invariably experienced a pounding headache and drowsiness for a number of hours. She recalls feeling trapped in a cycle of either being sedated and heavily medicated whenever she attempted to resist the treatment, or else being subjected to the ECT treatment whenever she refused to speak to anybody. The plaintiff estimates that in the thirteen years subsequent to her turning fifteen years old she was in hospital for roughly eleven years. During this time she was allowed intermittent visits home. During these visits the plaintiff says that she was bullied by other children in the area and was forced to live in the same house as the brother who had sexually abused her. As a result, she attempted suicide on a number of occasions. While in the hospital she was supervised at all times, including when using the toilet and battling, and was only allowed out to walk around the grounds. While resident in the hospital the plaintiff was sexually abused by a male trainee psychiatric nurse and religious brother who she had grown to trust. This abuse was the subject of a criminal complaint to An Garda Síochána and, as discussed further herein, was also the subject of separate civil proceedings.

7 In her early years before she was first admitted to hospital and before she first raised the issue of sexual abuse in the family home, the plaintiff was heavily involved in athletics. She won a gold medal in the county championships and played basketball for a senior team at a very young age. As a result of the sexual abuse she suffered, she left school at approximately 14 years of age and worked in a local hotel having failed to complete the Junior...