€23.5m Compensation related to birth Finbarr's

PatrickSmithUS

Massive award approved at the hight for someone that sustained birth injuries at St Finbarr's.


The arguments of the HSE seem flimsy enough.


https://irishmedicalnegligence.ie/16-year-old-girl-awarded-e23-5m-birth-injury-compensation-due-to-injuries-sustained-during-delivery/

pwurple

16 years to get that court case resolved... what a battle.

Iteration1

Is there any explanation given as to how such figures are arrived at? €23.5m just seems huge. Is there a huge set of legal costs or are they separate? Will admit I don't know the cost of care for such cases, but as a single figure, it just seems outlandish.

micks_address

Iteration1 wrote: »

Is there any explanation given as to how such figures are arrived at? €23.5m just seems huge. Is there a huge set of legal costs or are they separate? Will admit I don't know the cost of care for such cases, but as a single figure, it just seems outlandish.

As someone somewhat close to a similar case the costs aren’t out of the world. Think how much purpose build accommodation, possible full time 2 nurses caring for someone every day. Special vehicles for transport. Wheelchairs cost of treatments it’s a lot.. I bet they’d give every cent back in a heartbeat to have things work out as they should have when their child was born

cruizer101

But are most of those costs not covered by the state anyway purely on the basis of the child being disabled anyway regardless of how it happened.
Not saying they don't deserve compensation btw.

Iteration1

micks_address wrote: »

As someone somewhat close to a similar case the costs aren’t out of the world. Think how much purpose build accommodation, possible full time 2 nurses caring for someone every day. Special vehicles for transport. Wheelchairs cost of treatments it’s a lot.. I bet they’d give every cent back in a heartbeat to have things work out as they should have when their child was born

I wasn't at all implying that it wasn't very unfortunate and would hope that winning the case in itself brings them some solice, just by taking HSE to task. I just mean where such things transpire and there is no liability and such compensation, a family would have no hope of providing for it.

Turbohymac

States on the news feed that they are only in rented accommodation and hope to now buy their own home..I think like other posters on here that the award was a crazy amount of money.. less than half would seem appropriate..as after all its taxpayers money again..
2million should purchase a site and build an adequate purpose built new house.. and 10 more to compensate for past ..present and future care of this unfortunate teenager.
It must also be considered that this eye watering sum was reached and agreed without the hse admitting liability.
Bad day for the taxpayers of Ireland..
And many more to follow.

Turbohymac

Turbohymac wrote: »

States on the news feed that they are only in rented accommodation and hope to now buy their own home..I think like other posters on here that the award was a crazy amount of money.. less than half would seem appropriate..as after all its taxpayers money again..
2million should purchase a site and build an adequate purpose built new house.. and 10 more to compensate for past ..present and future care of this unfortunate teenager.
It must also be considered that this eye watering sum was reached and agreed without the hse admitting liability.
Bad day for the taxpayers of Ireland..
And many more to follow.

Is it not paid by an insurance company?
I'm sure the hospital has insurance.
I'm a tax payer, I have no issue with my money being spent on this, if it is. Pretty sure my tax money is going to a lot less worthy recipients.

jrosen

Compensation was necessary but goodness thats a huge figure. Seems plucked from the sky

jrosen

jrosen wrote: »

Compensation was necessary but goodness thats a huge figure. Seems plucked from the sky

It's a settlement, so obviously they thought that there was a risk of more being approved if the case went to hearing.

doc22

Who paid for the child's care up until now? I can't imagine payments like that awarded anywhere else in the world.

Turbohymac

Hi Bubblypop..
Yes I agree on your comment that lots of taxpayers money is constantly being wasted.. but given that this is clearly a record high amount to award this unfortunate person.
Its clearly difficult to understand how during mediation this huge figure was reached..
And will awards of this amount and no doubt much higher to come have to be reviewed almost like the car insurance industry of late where Ireland was awarding about 3times the amount to injured parties compared to our nearest neighbors the uk..
Yes loads of money being wasted in this island but setting another new record in this area should have been avoided..

In cases like this some people get too emotionally attached but like the current overspend on the children's hospital every euro should be properly accounted for..and this ain't happening..

Nigel Fairservice

cruizer101 wrote: »

But are most of those costs not covered by the state anyway purely on the basis of the child being disabled anyway regardless of how it happened.
Not saying they don't deserve compensation btw.

It is good to see how far things have come. My older sister was born in the same hospital is the early 1980s and was left with an acquired brain injury (intellectual) a day or so after being born due to negligence. No supports were offered to my parents.

micks_address

These figures are not plucked from the sky. Both parties sit down and work our costs associated with care for life expectancy.

Be right back

Kameela deserves every cent. Lovely family.

Traumadoc

bubblypop wrote: »

Is it not paid by an insurance company?
I'm sure the hospital has insurance.
I'm a tax payer, I have no issue with my money being spent on this, if it is. Pretty sure my tax money is going to a lot less worthy recipients.

It comes from state indemnity scheme, ie general HSE expenditure.

Afaik the money is kept in a fund and the family need to apply for what they need so it's only spent on things that are needed/ benefit their child, it's not just given to the family.
I can only imagine how difficult it has been for them living in unsuitable accommodation and I hope they get a great home and every available service to make they're lives easier.

fiload

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Afaik the money is kept in a fund and the family need to apply for what they need so it's only spent on things that are needed/ benefit their child, it's not just given to the family.
I can only imagine how difficult it has been for them living in unsuitable accommodation and I hope they get a great home and every available service to make they're lives easier.

I could be wrong but believe this is a myth.

I know two families who have been in similar situations.
One has rebuilt their house and bought two others + new cars each year since the settlement.
The other has built a literal mansion, and also bought a farm + machinery.

I also know a family who could have gone down the legal route but chose not. Their life bringing up the child was very tough, couldn't imagine going through that myself.

I think there should be compensation, but €500m in the last few years is an absolute scandal. Also, are they holding people to account for each of these failings?

Economics101

I think that the low interest rate environment has a lot to do with the size of the award. How much of a capital sum do you need yield an income of €x per year, where x is the estimated cost of care and medical treatment? The lower return on a financial asset (in this case the interest rate) the higher the capital sum needed. Clearly a long life expectancy adds to the capital sum.

Decades ago when interest rates on safe Government bonds were high, you didn't need such a high lump sum to generate an income of €x. A former colleague was often in the High Court giving evidence as to the appropriate interest rate to use when capitalising an annual payment into a once-off lump sum. Small variations in the interest rate could produce big variations in the lump sum.

You might well ask why awards are not based on a schedule of annual payments instead of a huge up-front lump payment.

jimmycrackcorm

fiload wrote: »

I could be wrong but believe this is a myth.

I know two families who have been in similar situations.
One has rebuilt their house and bought two others + new cars each year since the settlement.
The other has built a literal mansion, and also bought a farm + machinery.

This type of stuff should be investigated. While compensation should be given as obviously needed, it still is money being taken away from the HSE that could go on waiting lists etc.

One of the big problems is that the compensation is estimated and paid out in advance, when it should be paid as and when required in the future. i.e. in order to determine how much needs to be awarded, the worst-case scenario is projected, such as if a condition gets worse - hence the huge awards.

If the girl, in this case, were unfortunately to die tomorrow - the family still get that 23 million regardless that it isn't needed for her future care. I don't begrudge people getting what they need, but this is a huge flaw in the system.

JP Liz V1

Today at the High Court a €23.5 million birth injury settlement was approved for 16-year-old Kameela Kuye, who suffered catastrophic brain injuries during her birth in 2004,This is the largest lump sump of birth injury compensation ever to be awarded in the Irish State.

With an address at Upper Clevedon, Kilmoney, Carrigaline, Co Cork, Kameela Kuye had taken the legal action, via her father, against the Health Service Executive (HSE) in relation to the circumstances of her delivery on December 22, 2004 at St Finbarr’s Hospital in Cork. The HSE denied liability in the case.

The High Court heard Kameela was in good condition at the beginning of her delivery labour but was ‘next to death’ by the time she was born. It was argued by the legal representatives of the Kuye family that there had been an inadequate watch maintained on Kameela’s foetal heart beat during her delivery. Due to this, they informed the Judge, the catastrophic and life-changing injuries that she sustained could have been avoided.

The birth injury compensation settlement was approved by the Judge without an admission of liability.

Kameela’s mother, Ganiyat, is currently participating in a Masters in Social Work programme while her father works in logistics. The court was told that family was satisfied with settlement. In a statement read to the High Court by the Kuye family’s legal team they said that the compensation award will ‘assist in her future care and give her a better quality of life’. They added that no amount of money can change Kameela’s life and the damages will not make up for the significant injuries that she suffered during her birth.

Poor girl did the HSE and hospital even apologise?

micks_address

What price do you put on having to care for a disabled child knowing that they could have been perfect a part from a slight slip in care from the hospital? Walk a mile in those shoes is what I say. No amount of money could ever make it right.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This type of stuff should be investigated. While compensation should be given as obviously needed, it still is money being taken away from the HSE that could go on waiting lists etc.

One of the big problems is that the compensation is estimated and paid out in advance, when it should be paid as and when required in the future. i.e. in order to determine how much needs to be awarded, the worst-case scenario is projected, such as if a condition gets worse - hence the huge awards.

If the girl, in this case, were unfortunately to die tomorrow - the family still get that 23 million regardless that it isn't needed for her future care. I don't begrudge people getting what they need, but this is a huge flaw in the system.

They dont keep the money if the child dies, it's a fund that they apply to for the childs needs which includes house purchase/ extension, modified car ,carers etc.

doc22

Deleted User wrote: »

They dont keep the money if the child dies, it's a fund that they apply to for the childs needs which includes house purchase/ extension, modified car ,carers etc.

Where does the money go then?

the beer revolu

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Poor girl did the HSE and hospital even apologise?

I'd imagine not as they aren't accepting liability.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They dont keep the money if the child dies, it's a fund that they apply to for the childs needs which includes house purchase/ extension, modified car ,carers etc.

I respectfully ask, how do you know this?

I know when money is raised by charity in similar circumstances, it, usually goes into a trust fund for the person in need like you describe. I'm not aware of compensation being paid like this.

Perhaps as the money is awarded to the child, the parents cannot spend the money wily nily, but if the child died, I can't imagine her money being given back - it would have been her money. It no longer belongs to the HSE

The_Kew_Tour

No money covers the hurt this all caused.

I know of similar case and it’s nit like mother and father are driving around in a Ferrari and have a swimming pool in back garden now.

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

I respectfully ask, how do you know this?

I know when money is raised by charity in similar circumstances, it, usually goes into a trust fund for the person in need like you describe. I'm not aware of compensation being paid like this.

Perhaps as the money is awarded to the child, the parents cannot spend the money wily nily, but if the child died, I can't imagine her money being given back - it would have been her money. It no longer belongs to the HSE

It's what I was told by someone in a similar situation but I did say "afaik" as I'm only going by what I was told, the money wasn't lodged to their a/c, they applied for it when needed and anything unused was left in the fund, I've no idea who held the money but I believed what I was told.

Turbohymac

Turbohymac wrote: »

States on the news feed that they are only in rented accommodation and hope to now buy their own home..I think like other posters on here that the award was a crazy amount of money.. less than half would seem appropriate..as after all its taxpayers money again..
2million should purchase a site and build an adequate purpose built new house.. and 10 more to compensate for past ..present and future care of this unfortunate teenager.
It must also be considered that this eye watering sum was reached and agreed without the hse admitting liability.
Bad day for the taxpayers of Ireland..
And many more to follow.

I'm sorry but who gives a fawk, in the court room, that it is TaxPayers money? Why should the court take note of where the funds come from, at all.


If you have issue with tax payers paying so much take it up with your TD, that the HSE constantly protects doctors who practice dangerously, under-staff critical areas, overwork nursing staff etc.

Ask them why they are terrified to actually reform the HSE, or is it they want it to collapse under the weight of the politically appointed bureaucracy so that they can "justifiably" privatise it?


Also people always assume that settlements should only take into account the care and medical costs of the injured party which is a steaming take as there is also a payment derived for the destruction of their life.


How the state/HSE constantly hammers legitimate cases through the court only to settle at the last minute is disgusting and needs to stop.
Their primary actions seem to frighten legitimate cases away and the not accept liability (to protect the doctors)

Economics101

Cork Exile:

Also people always assume that settlements should only take into account the care and medical costs of the injured party which is a steaming take as there is also a payment derived for the destruction of their life.

I don't know about this, but the court settlement ought to make it clear the extent to which the award was for Special or General damages. The former is basically to cover the financial costs to the damaged party, the latter is more for "pain and suffering". Any lawyers around who could clarify this? My guess is that in this case, Special Damages are the dominant factor, quite unlike the chancers who sue for €60k for a sprained ankle.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's what I was told by someone in a similar situation but I did say "afaik" as I'm only going by what I was told, the money wasn't lodged to their a/c, they applied for it when needed and anything unused was left in the fund, I've no idea who held the money but I believed what I was told.

It's the bit about the money going back if the dependant dies I was really querying - that bit makes no sense to me.

It does make sense that the money would be held in trust for the dependent and that the parents would need to apply to spend the money on the dependant's care, though.

Not trying to have a go, just trying to figure out the reality of the situation.