People suing for damages warned court ‘not a charitable organisation’

Judge makes comments in dismissing case of Andrew McEneaney against HSE and CRC

Andrew McEneaney from Dundalk, Co Louth pictured leaving the Four Courts on Friday. Photograph: Collins Court.

A High Court judge has warned people going to court and suing for damages that the court “is not a charitable organisation”.

Ms Justice Bronagh O’Hanlon said the onus on those bringing cases is to be “exceptionally cautious”.

The judge made the comments when deciding liability for costs of a failed action by a disabled young man against the Central Remedial Clinic (CRC) and the HSE.

The judge said it was a complex medical case and, while the usual rule was that the losing side pays all the costs, she would, “with some reluctance”, make no order as to costs, meaning each side pays their own.

READ MORE

In dismissing Andrew McEneaney’s case, she said it was misconstrued and that the care and decisions taken were in his best interests and have produced the best possible outcome for him.

Mr McEneaney had had a successful outcome to what was pioneering surgery and the operation he underwent was the subject of considerable medical literature, she noted.

In his action, Mr McEneaney, Kilcurry, Dundalk, Co Louth, had alleged the focus of the CRC in relation to his care was on the question of spasiticity being a central feature of his condition and that risks in relation to hip dislocation where allegedly ignored.

He alleged failure to properly or adequately monitor him in the context of what was described as a “known risk”.

‘Red flag’

He also alleged failure to respond to what was described as a “red flag” incident which, it was alleged, ought to have given rise to precautionary X-rays.

It was alleged such X-rays would have disclosed the presence of either a hip dysplasia condition or what subsequently evolved or developed as dislocation of the hip.

In her ruling, Ms Justice O’Hanlon said it was quite clear Mr McEneaney has had excellent care with a multidisciplinary team and with various other concerned medical and physiotherapy interventions along the way.

It was clear the care and decisions taken were in Mr McEneaney’s best interests and have produced the best possible outcome, she said.

The court had no option but to dismiss the claim on the liability issue, she said.

She said the medical reasoning for not carrying out x rays was very clear and cogent and best practice had been applied in that regard.

After the defendants applied for the costs and Mr McEneaney’s lawyers asked the judge to make no order for costs, Ms Justice O’Hanlon said costs do usually follow the event, meaning the losing side pays.

However, Mr McEneaney was a young man starting out in life who was doing his best and she would make no order as to costs “with some reluctance”, the judge said.