Boy (11) whose face was allegedly cut during birth settles case for €35,000

A boy whose face was allegedly cut during his birth has settled a High Court action against the National Maternity Hospital.

Approving a €35,000 settlement, Mr Justice Paul Coffey told 11-year-old Leo Quinn he could barely see the scar on his mid forehead which extended down his nose. The judge said it was a fair and reasonable settlement.

The settlement is without an admission of liability and the claims in the case are denied.

Leo’s counsel, Doireann O’Mahony BL, instructed by Damien Tansey solicitors, told the court that when Leo was delivered there were a number of cuts on his face which all healed up with the exception of one on his mid forehead which has left a 2cm long scar.

Ask Roe: My partner has become increasingly right wing conservative in his world view

---

What age are you? How much did that cost?: Here’s how to deal with intrusive questions

---

Trinity College Dublin protest: What links does the Irish university have to Israel?

---

Cliff Taylor: Sinn Féin says abolishing Help-to-Buy will be good for first time buyers – is it right?

---

She said it is alleged the baby had been cut with a scalpel during the surgery. However, she said the hospital denied a scalpel had caused the cut and said it could relate to a number of hours earlier in relation to an artificial rupture of membrane procedure.

Counsel said liability remained at issue in the case. She said the scar was not very noticeable.

Leo Quinn, of Dunmore Grove, Kingswood, Dublin, had through his mother, Jacqui Quinn, sued the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin.

Leo was delivered by emergency Caesarean section on June 6th, 2011, and was in overall good condition.

It was claimed Leo suffered a significant incision on his forehead extending to his nose, as well as cuts under his right eye and to the left of his nose.

There was an alleged failure to exercise the care, competence, judgment and skill to be expected in the management of the delivery of the baby.

It was further claimed that the baby was caused to sustain significant facial scarring which was allegedly entirely avoidable.

The claims were denied, and the hospital pleaded that the medical management of the birth was in accordance with widespread, general and approved medical practice.

The hospital denied that a scalpel had caused a laceration, saying the scalpel during a Caesarean section could not have accessed the baby’s face during the procedure.

It claimed that it was more likely the injury occurred about eight hours before the Caesarean section during the use of an amnihook instrument as part of an artificial rupture of membrane procedure.