Parents of brain-damaged child left with €500k legal bill after court action fails

Einhard · 11-10-2012 06:40PM #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1011/parents-face-500-000-legal-bill-over-court-action.html

Linda Duffy, from Cabinteely in Dublin, wiped away tears as Mr Justice Sean
Ryan said he had no choice under law but to award half of the costs of the case
against her to the hospital.

The hospital had sought all its costs.

The court heard that the family home is the only asset of Mrs Duffy, a
primary school teacher, and her husband Anthony, who works in property
maintenance.

The couple has three children, the eldest of whom is Mark, who is profoundly
disabled and requires 24-hour care after suffering severe brain injuries and
loss of an eye after contracting meningitis after his premature birth.

While the normal rule requires costs to go to the winning side, the judge
said he was reducing the costs order to 50%.

A couple whose son was born prematurely and contracted meningitis leading to debilitating brain-damage lost their case against the hospital, and are left with their own costs and half of those of the hospital. I think it's a very sad case, and it'd be great if some way was found to alleviate the financial burden that they are now facing, but I think the decision was a correct one. If the state had to shoulder the costs of the action, then it woud only encourage other speculative actions by patients and their parents. Furthermore, had the costs been awarded against the hospital, then they would have come put of the HSE's current budget, and adversely affected people who are currently sick and awaiting treatment. So, while it's a very sad case, I think the correct decision ws made by the judge. Some might say that full costs should have been awarded against the couple, but that would have been too punitive IMO.

What do you lot think?

TwoShedsJackson · 11-10-2012 06:46PM

They'll probably never be able to pay it back either way so it won't matter too much, but even if they do, taking a court case carries a risk of losing and paying the other sides costs, it's not a guaranteed pay-out despite what some might think.

My name is URL · 11-10-2012 06:47PM

Sad alright but such are the risks involved with taking a court action. Surely they were advised of the potential costs should they be unsuccessful with their claim of negligence? Not sure how it can be made any easier for the family... perhaps friends and relatives could organise some fundraising events to help them pay the legal costs.

SuperInfinity · 11-10-2012 06:52PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Not sure how it can be made any easier for the family... perhaps friends and relatives could organise some fundraising events to help them pay the legal costs.

Fundraising for half a million euro? Just declare bankruptcy, hopefully the courts will go lenient on them as regards housing/possessions etc.

hidinginthebush · 11-10-2012 06:57PM

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's a very sad case, and it'd be great if some way was found to alleviate the financial burden that they are now facing, but I think the decision was a correct one. If the state had to shoulder the costs of the action, then it woud only encourage other speculative actions by patients and their parents. Furthermore, had the costs been awarded against the hospital, then they would have come put of the HSE's current budget, and adversely affected people who are currently sick and awaiting treatment. So, while it's a very sad case, I think the correct decision ws made by the judge. Some might say that full costs should have been awarded against the couple, but that would have been too punitive IMO.

What do you lot think?

I think its sad that the family lost, but I don't think the question of how a win would affect the state or the hse budget should ever be considered. At the end of the day it was a question of negligence, and the hospital was found to be innocent of it. I think its a very sad case, and feel sorry for the family; their difficult situation has been made a lot harder.

But we shouldn't be breathing a silent sigh of relief that the government got off with having to pay out a few quid. Hell, I'm sure we'd all gladly see the abolition of some of the crazy perks given to the public sector if it meant more care for families with disabled children, like those in this case.

Edit: I don't doubt your sympathy for the family, its more that if the government was found to have to cough up a few quid, I wouldn't be too annoyed.

Big Nasty · 11-10-2012 06:59PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Fundraising for half a million euro? Just declare bankruptcy, hopefully the courts will go lenient on them as regards housing/possessions etc.

Tragic circumstances for sure but in your example above who foots the bill then?

You & I I'm afraid.

Edit: If it costs all taxpayers a fiver each I think we can cope with that.

My name is URL · 11-10-2012 07:13PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Fundraising for half a million euro? Just declare bankruptcy, hopefully the courts will go lenient on them as regards housing/possessions etc.

It wouldn't be an impossible feat. With a bit of publicity I'm sure they could tug on enough peoples heartstrings to put a fair dent in what they owe.

Would bankruptcy even be an option for them since it's not a creditor per se that is owed? Even if they could declare bankruptcy, it's easier said than done here, and would most like cause big problems for them later on considering they have a kid that needs 24/7 care.

Boombastic · 11-10-2012 07:14PM

Who is currently and previously paying for the child's care?

mahamageehad · 11-10-2012 07:22PM

Win some, lose some.

The court needed to make an accurate decision based on the facts presented, and they deducted that there was no negligence on the part of the hospital. It's not X-factor, you cant choose theside with the most heart wrenching story, it doesn't come down to the public vote.

It was a nice gesture for the court to rule they only had to pay half the expenses. It broke my heart to hear the mother on the radio though today. Will they have to sell the family house to pay the expenses?! That would be a little too far for me. Are they paying for that child healthcare now or is it a medical card situation?

delad · 11-10-2012 07:24PM

How can they be allowed to bring such a case in the first place if they don't have the means to pay for the legal costs if they lose?

The lawyers have made a mint from this, all at the expense of us the taxpayers as we will have to bail out the family. Its such a farce that this sort of thing is still allowed in this day and age.

Ilyana · 11-10-2012 07:25PM

I wouldn't find any solace in the knowledge that the HSE has fewer legal costs to pay than if they were found to be negligent, even though the decision was fair. The whole idea of the public being able to sue for medical negligence is so that healthcare professionals are accountable if they fail to provide a certain standard of care.

If the courts found in favour of the HSE, it is very unfortunate for the family involved and some kind of fundraising venture could really help them. But I'm sure it's no comfort to them that their taxes will still be contributing to the other 50% of the legal costs.

Einhard · 11-10-2012 07:27PM

I think the system really needs reform. The threat of bankruptcy must deter many people with legitimate cases from pursuing them. How on earth can justice be impartial when only the wealthy can pursue cases without the spectre of financial ruin hanging over them?

Gbear · 11-10-2012 07:37PM

As tragic as it is for the family I think the case is an example that we're too quick to pass on blame and certainly too quick to pursue legal action.

Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes you just get **** luck. Maybe the family really thought they had a case but it doesn't look like they really did based on the rte link.

flutterflye · 11-10-2012 07:42PM

I think I must be thick!
What exactly is the money for?
Is it to pay the salaries of the lawyers and judge etc?

Ilyana · 11-10-2012 07:50PM

Gbear wrote: »

As tragic as it is for the family I think the case is an example that we're too quick to pass on blame and certainly too quick to pursue legal action.

Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes you just get **** luck. Maybe the family really thought they had a case but it doesn't look like they really did based on the rte link.

If the case was unlikely to succeed, the solicitor shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

delad · 11-10-2012 07:57PM

Ilyana wrote: »

If the case was unlikely to succeed, the solicitor shouldn't have taken in in the first place.

but its in the interest of solicitors to advise them to proceed, whether the couple wins or loses the case makes no difference to them, they still make their money

MagicMarker · 11-10-2012 08:01PM

flutterflye wrote: »

I think I must be thick!
What exactly is the money for?
Is it to pay the salaries of the lawyers and judge etc?

Not the judge's pay, just their own legal costs and half of the hospitals legal costs, as in solicitors fees etc.

AskMyChocolate · 11-10-2012 08:03PM

Einhard wrote: »

I think the system really needs reform. The threat of bankruptcy must deter many people with legitimate cases from pursuing them. How on earth can justice be impartial when only the wealthy can pursue cases without the spectre of financial ruin hanging over them?

I found myself in this position. Was the victim of gross negligence, abuse and threats. Couldn't risk taking a legal action. Reported it to all relevant bodies (the internal Hospital complaints section, the mental health authority,the Medical council, the forensic mental health service, the HSE, the Minister for Health etc.), but they just led me up the garden path with stonewalling and lies. Went on for seven years. They just wore me out.

They know they can do anything they like to the mentally ill, as the very nature of the illness means that they can plant doubt about the quality of the plaintiff's evidence. It's disgusting really, but then again, what can you expect from a religious order given the power to incarcerate people by the state. You'd have thought, given our experience with the Magdalane laundries and the industrial schools that we would have learned that these people aren't fit to be left in charge of a kennel, nevermind centres for the most vulnerable in our society; but, no, they're still coining it hand over fist from the state and abusing their charges.

"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

My name is URL · 11-10-2012 08:03PM

Ilyana wrote: »

If the case was unlikely to succeed, the solicitor shouldn't have taken in in the first place.

Would that apply to every single case of litigation? No point in having courts so; if it's for solicitors to judge whether or not a case succeeds.

Gbear · 11-10-2012 08:04PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not the judge's pay, just their own legal costs and half of the hospitals legal costs, as in solicitors fees etc.

Presumably it also covers the cost of availing of the court system. That's not free is it?

MagicMarker · 11-10-2012 08:04PM

delad wrote: »

but its in the interest of solicitors to advise them to proceed, whether the couple wins or loses the case makes no difference to them, they still make their money

If the family can't afford to pay their own solicitor then how exactly does it make no difference to him? Who's going to give him money if the family can't?

flutterflye · 11-10-2012 08:06PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Not the judge's pay, just their own legal costs and half of the hospitals legal costs, as in solicitors fees etc.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I agree then with the person who said the parent's solicitor shouldn't have taken the case.

I guess, I must also agree with the op, as much as my heart goes out to them - they did know the risks when they got into it.

I feel dreadful for them though - sounds like they have it quite tough

cujimmy · 11-10-2012 08:07PM

Would'nt cost the HSE a penny oneway or the other, they have insurance cover

Stheno · 11-10-2012 08:09PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

If the family can't afford to pay their own solicitor then how exactly does it make no difference to him? Who's going to give him money if the family can't?

You can actually take out insurance in the event that you have to pay costs for personal injury cases it is limited to a certain amount but would potentially have saved this family this sort of outcome.

MagicMarker · 11-10-2012 08:10PM

Gbear wrote: »

Presumably it also covers the cost of availing of the court system. That's not free is it?

I was always under the impression that it was, never heard of a court charging you for their time. It's a public service, like the guards, imagine if the guards charged you to report a crime!

shopaholic01 · 11-10-2012 08:11PM

Ilyana wrote: »

If the case was unlikely to succeed, the solicitor shouldn't have taken in in the first place.

They may have been made aware that they were likely to lose the case and proceeded regardless. I think this highlights the need to regulate the fees solicitors and barristers can charge.

Giselle · 11-10-2012 08:12PM

cujimmy wrote: »

Would'nt cost the HSE a penny oneway or the other, they have insurance cover

Premiums cost money. The more claims paid out on the policies, the more they cost.

Malpractice insurance costs the HSE plenty.

WhatNowForUs? · 11-10-2012 08:14PM

delad wrote: »

How can they be allowed to bring such a case in the first place if they don't have the means to pay for the legal costs if they lose?

The lawyers have made a mint from this, all at the expense of us the taxpayers as we will have to bail out the family. Its such a farce that this sort of thing is still allowed in this day and age.

Does that then mean only the rich should be able to bring a court case.

jonsnow · 11-10-2012 08:17PM

Ilyana wrote: »

If the case was unlikely to succeed, the solicitor shouldn't have taken in in the first place.

Solicitors follow their clients instructions.You don,t know what advice's the solicitor gave but I can assure you that they were the best he could give in the circumstances to the best of his ability.Medical negligence cases are mind-numbingly complex and no-one takes them on lightly.He would have got advices from a senior counsel who specialises in med neg and is probably a doctor and a junior counsel.Plus god knows how many reports from doctors practicising all over the world who are preeminent in their field.The case could have broken new ground in a new area and no one could have known what the outcome would be until the case was actually run(which also goes for every court case ever).In ireland realistically cases like these are the only way to hold consultants to account and as your tackling such powerful interests the consequences if you lose can be terrible.

Very sorry for the family its certainly a contrast to the way in which the Haughey family legal costs in a failed case are dealt with by the state yesterday.

Scanlas The 2nd · 11-10-2012 08:19PM

Everyone on boards should give them 10 euro each. I'd happily give it.

General General · 11-10-2012 08:24PM

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Does that then mean only the rich should be able to bring a court case.

No. It means that only the rich should be able to bring some court cases.. ones that they can afford to pay for if & when they lose.

Anyone can become completely convinced that their side of the story is correct, anyone can decide to pursue their claims, regardless of cost to themselves, however, call stop when the person begins going way beyond their means should they lose.

Parents of brain-damaged child left with €500k legal bill after court action fails

Comments