A woman told by the Supreme Court last week she had run out of time to take proceedings over the alleged unnecessary removal in 1991 of her left ovary by consultant obstetrician Dr Michael Neary was ordered yesterday to pay legal costs estimated at more than €40,000.
Ms Rosemary Cunningham, Corlea, Kingscourt, Co Cavan, had won the right to sue the doctor and the hospital following a two-day High Court hearing in October last. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous decision last Tuesday, the three-judge Supreme Court found the proposed action was statute-barred - brought outside the three-year legal time limit.
The Supreme Court left over the issue of costs until yesterday when it ruled Ms Cunningham should pay them.
The result of Ms Cunningham's proceedings may affect other actions brought over Dr Neary's performance of allegedly unnecessary Caesarean hysterectomies and other procedures. It is believed some 60-70 summonses have been issued against Dr Neary to date and this could reach 120.
Ms Cunningham initiated proceedings in March 2002 against Dr Neary; representatives of the Medical Missionaries of Mary and a nominee of the North Eastern Health Board arising from her treatment by Dr Neary at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in August 1991. She claimed Dr Neary wrongfully removed her left ovary after she was admitted to the hospital with an ectopic pregnancy.
The High Court had decided that the three-year limit began to run from the time Ms Cunningham had knowledge that the operation to remove her ovary was unnecessary. It found that Ms Cunningham had neither constructive nor actual knowledge that the operation was performed unnecessarily until she received a report from consultant obstetrician Dr Richard Porter, in April 2001.
In the Supreme Court appeal, counsel for Dr Neary and the hospital argued that Ms Cunningham had sufficient information in 1998 to establish a cause of action. The Supreme Court agreed.
Ms Justice McGuinness, in her judgment allowing the appeal, said that while one could not but have sympathy for Ms Cunningham's position and it was very unfortunate that the issuing of her proceedings was so long delayed, there was no doubt the claim was statute-barred.