Woman sues over incorrect reporting of cervical smears

A woman in her 60s, and currently on a palliative regime for cervical cancer, has launched a High Court action over the incorrect reporting of her smear tests.

Patrick Treacy SC, for the woman, told the court on Wednesday she was given the all clear on tests taken in 2006 and 2009 under the screening programme.

The woman, who cannot be identified by court order, has recently been widowed, the court heard.

She has sued the HSE over her smear samples tested at a laboratory at University College Hospital, Galway.

She alleges failure to correctly report and diagnose and that her smear test of 2006 was misinterpreted so her cancer was allowed to develop and spread unidentified, unmonitored and untreated until she was diagnosed with cervical cancer in October 2009.

Had her 2006 smear sample been correctly reported, she claims she would have been referred for a procedure which would have meant the pre cancer would have been eradicated with a less than 5 per cent chance of recurrence and less than 1 per cent chance of an invasive cancer developing.

Liability was conceded in the case last week.

Following her diagnosis of Stage 2 cervical cancer in October 2009, the woman underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Five years ago, she was confirmed to have cancer in her right lung and her pelvis and was commenced on palliative chemotherapy. She later developed the disease in her left lung.

Mr Treacy, instructed by Cian O Carroll solicitors, said the woman was referred by her GP to a gynaecologist in October 2009 and a stage 2 invasive cervical cancer was diagnosed .

Counsel said, after that diagnosis, the report of the 2009 smear sample came back saying “ no abnormality detected”.

“After that diagnosis was made, she got the result of the smear test which said all clear,” counsel said.

Reviews were carried out in 2012 of the 2009 smear test and it showed the original report of the smear test was incorrect. In 2013, a further review of the same smear sample showed a high grade squamous lesion and possible glandular involvement.

The result, it is claimed, was not communicated to the woman.

In May 2018, she was advised by her treating gynaecologist of the reviews carried out on her 2009 sample.

The case will resume before Mr Justice Kevin Cross in the new year.