THE Blood Transfusion Service Board has admitted liability in a claim by a second woman suffering from hepatitis C, the High Court was told yesterday.
However, the case is to come before the court again tomorrow when a date is expected for a full hearing in respect of damages. That hearing is unlikely to take place for some months.
Lawyers for the woman said afterwards they would be seeking a High Court hearing to assess compensatory damages for her. She would also be seeking aggravated damages. The BTSB is denying the woman is entitled to exemplary or aggravated damages from it.
Ms Mary Quinlan, of Greenhills, Brownshill Road, Carlow, who has eight children, is suing the BTSB, the National Drugs Advisory Board, the Minister for Health and the State.
Last week, the BTSB admitted liability in the ease of Co Donegal woman, Ms Brigid McCole, and apologised. Ms McCole had died the previous week. A settlement of £175,000 was accepted.
Mr Justice Johnson yesterday refused an application on behalf of Ms Quinlan for judgment in default of defence against the BTSB. Mr Donal O'Donnell SC for the BTSB, said a defence had been filed last Friday.
Mr Martin Hayden, counsel for Ms Quinlan, asked for an early bearing to assess ordinary compensation and to deal with a claim for aggravated damages.
Later, Malcolmson Law, solicitors, for Ms Quinlan, said in a statement that the BTSB had "acknowledged its responsibilities" to Ms Quinlan by furnishing a defence 48 hours prior to an application for judgment in the High Court. It added: "Resulting from this, the plaintiff, Mary Quinlan, is entitled to a High Court assessment of compensatory damages together with a judicial determination upon her entitlement to aggravated damages. It should be emphasised that no lodgement has been made to date by any defendant."
The statement said there was a second application seeking priority in the court list, which was to be heard tomorrow and at which Mrs Quinlan's side would be seeking a date for hearing either late in the present law term or early in the next term. At this point, they expected the motion would not be opposed by any of the defendants.
Malcolmson Law added that yesterday was the conclusion of "a battle of court documents" which had lasted almost 18 months. Their instructions were to proceed with the full hearing of the case against all defendants and to seek aggravated damages.
"Our client has indicated her pleasure with the admission of liability late last Friday evening by the BTSB and that her personal struggle to date has been vindicated," said the statement.
Ms Quinlan claims that on dates unknown, until after the discovery of documents, the BTSB and Minister made available to the public, blood products licensed by the Drugs Advisory Board. She alleges she was administered anti D immunoglobulin from her second child onwards.
In the defence delivered on behalf of the BTSB, it admits Ms Quinlan "had been injured by the negligence of this defendant" and that it was obliged to pay such compensation for personal injuries, loss and damage as may be determined.
It was admitted that prior to and subsequent to August 21st, 1977, the BTSB made available to Ms Quinlan blood derivative products for administration to patients with O Rhesus Negative blood type post delivery.
The BTSB defence admitted it was under a duty of care to Ms Quinlan in relation to the proper administration, supervision, testing and organisation of the acquisition of the constituent materials necessary for producing anti D. It was denied the BTSB knowingly or for its own gain permitted the use of blood products with known contaminants.
It was also denied that the BTSB knew of contaminants or that it was indifferent or reckless in relation to the examination, supervision or inspection of raw materials required for the production of anti D. The defence said it was admitted that Ms Quinlan was injured as a result of anti D product supplied by the BTSB but it did not admit the extent of those injuries. While it was admitted that Ms Quinlan suffered hepatitis C as a result of the anti D, the complications and difficulties alleged to result from it were not admitted.
The BTSB said it was denied that it knew of or was indifferent or reckless to the existence of the contamination. It was denied that it continued to administer anti D to Ms Quinlan when it knew of the contaminants or the alleged or any complications arising therefrom. The defence denies that the BTSB sought to conceal the existence of the difficulties from the public or sought to conceal the existence of the terminal nature of the illness.