Ill woman settles action on cancer diagnosis

A WOMAN who is gravely ill with an aggressive form of breast cancer has settled on undisclosed terms her High Court action over the admitted misdiagnosis of her condition. She is “living through a nightmare”, the court heard.

A claim on behalf of the woman’s young daughter was also settled yesterday on terms including a payment of €135,000 towards her future care. The child was also made a ward of court.

The court heard the woman was concerned for her daughter’s future in the context of her serious illness and the fact the child’s father had no contact with either the mother or child.

Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill yesterday granted an application by Edward Walsh SC, for the woman and child, for an order preventing publication of the identities of any of the parties in the case or publication of any material that would tend to identify them.

The case was brought against a doctor and another party by the woman, who is in her 40s and separated, and by her young daughter.

Outlining the case, Mr Walsh said the woman was the victim of a misdiagnosis of her condition, which occurred at a hospital. She now had stage four cancer and the prognosis was grim, he said.

This was a case involving tragic circumstances and where the woman’s survival prospects may not extend beyond a period of months, Mr Walsh said. His client had greater optimism but that was in the face of the medical evidence.

Mr Walsh added his client was a very private woman who had not advised members of her family about her diagnosis and prognosis. She was trying to deal with it but the stress involved meant she was living through a nightmare.

In those circumstances, and because the child’s father was not in any relationship with the mother, had accepted no responsibility for his child and was paying no maintenance for her, an issue arose about the future care of her child, he added.

Mr Walsh said he was recommending that the court approve the €135,000 offer in the child’s case because, if the case proceeded, there would be difficulties related to issues including the father’s responsibility in law and morally for his daughter’s care.

The mother was anxious, given her illness, to have some provision for her child’s future care.

Mr Justice O’Neill said that in all the circumstances, he regarded the decision to recommend the offer in the child’s case as prudent and he would approve that settlement.