A former soldier who claimed Army authorities failed to recognise his post-traumatic stress condition and refer him for medical help following incidents in Lebanon was awarded more than £200,000 damages and costs at the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Budd said it was important to emphasise that Mr David McHugh (36) was not claiming damages because he was subjected to stress or exposed to life-threatening experiences, dangerous situations or grisly dealings with mutilated corpses. Irish soldiers serving with UNIFIL in Lebanon could expect this.
Mr McHugh's claim was instead based on the negligent failure of the defendants - the Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General - to treat the symptoms of his post-traumatic stress disorder, the judge said.
Mr McHugh, of Bargy Road, East Wall, Dublin, contended that if the stress symptoms had been treated by counselling in Lebanon or on his return to Dublin, the condition would probably not have become chronic.
Mr Justice Budd said that on November 1st, 1992, Mr McHugh was exposed to a life-threatening incident involving an unexpected and negligent discharge of a gun by a sergeant standing beside him.
He suffered an immediate and severe reaction and was very distressed. He returned to Ireland on Christmas leave.
On his return to Lebanon further incidents caused him acute distress. In January 1993, he came upon a UN jeep which appeared to have been blown up and to have bodies around it. The "gory scene" made an impression on Mr McHugh and his colleagues.
On February 15th and 17th, 1993, Mr McHugh and the team had to perform hazardous duties and were exposed to the sight of mutilated and shot-up corpses, the judge said. Neither Mr McHugh nor his colleagues had experience in dealing with mutilated bodies. It was common case this was high-risk search and recovery work. Mr Justice Budd said Mr McHugh was deeply affected and showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress, which were commented on by fellow soldiers and NCOs and were brought to the attention of his platoon commander.
It was relevant to note that knowledge about PTSD was available from the mid-1980s and that a lecture was given and notes on PTSD by an army psychologist were distributed to officers going to Lebanon from about 1990.
In April 1993, Mr McHugh returned home. He knew something was affecting him and went to see a commandant in Clancy Barracks. The officer did not refer him for medical help.
In December 1993, Mr McHugh told his Army sergeant he intended leaving the Army. He was then referred to hospital where he came under the care of an Army psychiatrist who diagnosed him as suffering from PTSD. Upon her advice, later as a consultant psychiatrist, he left the Army in March 1997.
Mr Justice Budd concluded there was no doubt Mr McHugh was sensitised by the life-threatening incident in November involving negligent discharge of a rifle and that he was further traumatised by the incidents involving bodies.
Regarding the defence submission that Mr McHugh should have recognised his condition and sought help, the judge accepted the former soldier's evidence that he did not know he was suffering from a medical condition. His employers were under a duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of employees. The perils of PTSD in those subject to stress were well known to the defendants for many years before 1992.
"The plaintiff manifested quite obvious symptoms of PTSD," the judge said. "I have no doubt that the plaintiff's officers should have recognised his condition of PTSD and should have referred him for medical help."
Failure to recognise and treat the soldier's symptoms was due to culpable negligence on the part of his superiors and resulted in his contracting chronic PTSD.
If proper inquiry had been made by his superiors, the seriousness of the symptoms would have become apparent, and Mr McHugh would have been referred to doctors, who would have diagnosed his PTSD at an early stage.
Eariler diagnosis would have given an opportunity for remedial therapy which would have quickly relieved or reduced the symptoms. Thus, he would not have suffered from the long-lasting PTSD which had been resistant to therapy and rehabilitation and which had so adversely affected him in his working, social and domestic life.
Mr Justice Budd said that according to a doctor whose prognosis he accepted, Mr McHugh was still suffering from chronic PTSD. Even if he recovered somewhat, he was vulnerable to relapse and the likelihood was a continuation of PTSD.
He awarded £65,000 for pain and suffering to date; £67,593 for special damages to date, to include loss of past earnings and loss of pension; £40,000 for pain and suffering in future; and other sums for special damages in future. The total damages award amounted to £218,900 and Mr McHugh was also awarded costs.
A stay on the award and costs was imposed until Monday when the judge will hear submissions on whether to grant a longer stay in the event of an appeal.