A Cork couple lost their an action alleging negligence in their son's birth.
After the Supreme Court decision in its favour, the Bon Secours Hospital, College Road, Cork, called for "a State-supported mechanism" to assist families like the O'Mahonys, of Beechwood Grove, Onslow Gardens, Commons Road, Cork. This would avoid "the existing situation where the only recourse is through the courts".
The family's solicitor, Mr Michael O'Connell, criticised "a determined lobby and press campaign" by medical defence insurers and consultants' groups against the high cost of obstetric insurance.
Mr O'Connell said it was inferred that high premiums were caused by the costs of medical insurance in cases such as that taken by his clients, Mr John and Mrs Ann O'Mahony, whose son Ian, now 13, is physically and mentally disabled.
The O'Mahonys alleged medical negligence and sought damages from the hospital where Ian was born on May 11th, 1987. They also sued a consultant obstetrician, Dr David A. Corr, formerly of Western Road, Cork, who had attended at his birth.
After a 46-day hearing, the High Court, in a judgment of April 7th, 2000, dismissed the action against the hospital and the consultant. It found the parents had not established medical negligence against either of the two defendants.
The trial judge also held that, while there had been two departures by the hospital from what would be regarded as a requisite standard of care, the evidence had not established that either of these had caused or contributed to Ian's present disability.
The High Court refused to award the costs of the action, estimated at £1 million, against the O'Mahonys.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which yesterday upheld the High Court decision and adjourned the costs issue to July 30th.
After yesterday's hearing Mr and Mrs O'Mahony expressed disappointment with the outcome. The hospital welcomed the Supreme Court decision but expressed its sympathy for the O'Mahony family.
In a statement, Mr O'Connell said it was ironic that the Supreme Court decision was handed down a day after another decision which "watered down" the State's obligation to disabled people.
"Ann and John O'Mahony will have to care for Ian for their lives and will receive no compensation and face an uncertain future in terms of the education choices available to them," he said.
The case also highlighted the inadequacy of the civil legal aid system here. In England, this case would have been fully funded by legal aid, he said. It was important that cases like Ian's, which appeared to test the boundary of medical knowledge about the causes of brain injury, were aired in court.
Mr O'Connell said the court could not be accused of good timing in regard to the disabled. "It is a bad week for persons like Ian O'Mahony and Jamie Sinnott. Ian cannot speak for himself and has only his parents to look out for him. He has no pressure/lobby group speaking for him."