A specialist medical practice has apologised in court to a woman who claimed she suffered an injury during the insertion of a coil to treat the symptoms of menopause.
The apology was read in the High Court as Elaine Mooney settled her legal action against The Menopause Hub. The settlement is without an admission of liability.
In the apology The Menopause Hub apologised for the “pain, suffering, discomfort and inconvenience” experienced by the woman while attending the practice for removal and insertion of a Mirena coil in 2021
“While we endeavour to ensure all treatment provided at our clinic meets the highest possible standard, we acknowledge that the treatment which you received caused you distress and we regret the pain and discomfort you experienced,” it added.
Your top stories on Wednesday
Q&A: Will we have a tax liability if Dad gives us his home while he is alive?
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall’s son on his parents: ‘Kids were second to their drinking and partying’
The woman’s counsel, Esther Earley BL, instructed by Piaras Neary of HOMS Assist, told the court the case had been settled and could be struck out.
Ms Mooney (54), of Grattan Lodge, Balgriffin, Dublin, had sued The Menopause Hub Ltd with a registered address at Dodder Park Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin as a result of a procedure carried out at their medical centre at The Rise, Mount Merrion, Dublin. The Menopause Hub is a specialist medical practice offering treatment and services to menopausal women.
Ms Mooney had a coil in place for five years and required a replacement. It was claimed that on April 14th, 2021, she attended the medical centre. It was claimed that during the insertion of a new coil system, it was caused to penetrate the wall of the woman’s uterus and enter her pelvic cavity.
Ms Mooney had to undergo an emergency laparoscopy procedure under general anesthetic at a hospital to have the device located and removed. She contended she was traumatised by her experience.
It was claimed there was a failure to carry out an adequate assessment of the woman prior to attempting to insert the replacement coil. There was also an alleged failure to insert a uterine sound to establish the position of her uterus and the length of the uterine cavity prior to attempting the insertion of the coil.
It was also claimed there was a failure to respond to the woman’s complaints of severe sharp pain during the course of the initial attempted insertion of the coil and an alleged failure to consider at all that it had pierced through the wall of her womb.
She alleged she was caused to suffer severe pain during the procedure to insert the coil and felt persistent abdominal and pelvic pain afterward.
She said she has been left with two permanent scars on her abdomen as a result of her laparoscopy.
The claims were denied.