Thomas’ brain injury claim settled for €485,000

5 minute read

Thomas suffered from recurring nasal polyps, for which he had undergone both medical and surgical treatment on several previous occasions. Nasal polyps are soft, painless, non‑cancerous growths that develop on the lining of the nasal passages or sinuses. They form when the mucous membrane becomes chronically inflamed.

His symptoms reoccurred a few years later and he subsequently underwent a further Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery (FESS) surgical procedure to remove the nasal polyps. It is a minimally invasive operation performed to treat chronic sinus problems, including the removal of nasal polyps.

Thomas collapsed several days after the procedure

A number of days after the procedure to remove the nasal polyps, Thomas became very unwell and suffered debilitating headaches. He collapsed just over a week after the surgical procedure and was admitted to Hospital as an emergency.

It transpired that a perforation had occurred during the surgical procedure, which was not noted at the time. He was transferred by ambulance to the resuscitation unit of St Vincent’s University Hospital, was intubated, and then moved to the neurosurgery unit in Beaumont Hospital.

It transpired that his surgical procedure to remove his nasal polyps was complicated by a meningeal tear, which caused a leak of cerebral spinal fluid leading to bacterial meningitis and brain haemorrhage.

Urgent surgery was required

Thomas had to undergo urgent neurosurgery to deal with the meningeal tear and the cerebral spinal fluid leak. He was in Hospital for a significant period of time and the incident resulted in him suffering significant and lifelong cognitive deficits, which affected many aspects of his life including his personality, his memory, his ability to carry out day to day activities.

Thomas initiated a medical negligence claim

Thomas’ family contacted Augustus Cullen Law as a result of a direct referral and Joice Carthy was instructed in the case.

Proving liability was difficult in this case and liability remained at issue throughout. Both negligence in allowing the injury to occur and the causation of Thomas’ cognitive issues were strongly disputed. Furthermore, the case was unusual as it was not alleged that the procedure was carried out in a negligent manner, but rather the basis of the case was that Thomas should have been offered a much more conservative treatment using medication, which his experts felt was very likely to have been effective.

There was negligence alleged in proceeding with the surgery without having exhausted medical treatment and in failing to advise Thomas of conservative and less risky treatment. Thomas was also at much higher risk for injury during the FESS procedure due to the anatomy of his sinuses and brain, as a result of him having undergone three previous procedures.

A number of experts were instructed on the liability issues, primarily in the areas of:

ENT surgery
neurology
neuropsychology
and care

Expert reports were obtained

A large number of reports were obtained on how Thomas had been affected by his injuries. He had ongoing significant headache pain, which effectively impacted him every day and he had ongoing cognitive problems affecting his memory, mood, personality and ability to carry out day to day activities which required concentration.

Proceedings were issued

The Defendants did not admit wrongdoing and a Trial date was set. An attempt was made to mediate the case about a week before the Trial, but this failed and the matter proceeded to the Trial date.

Only days before the Trial, the Defendants filed a Motion to amend their Defence.

The claim settled

On the Trial date and after a Judge had been allocated to hear the case, further negotiations with the Defendants began and the matter settled for the sum of €485,000.

The full value of the claim was considered to be higher than this, but there were very complex liability issues, both relating to negligence and causation of injury, both of which were strongly disputed by the Defendant’s expert. Thomas and his family were happy with the outcome, as they had concerns about his future needs, given the cognitive issues caused by the alleged negligence.

Client remarks made on Trustpilot

“The service provided was first rate in every respect. The legal process was unfamiliarity territory for us but, right from our initial consultation, we felt we were in safe, experienced hands – and were proven right. We were given a clear picture of the likely scenario. Queries were dealt with immediately – no reminders ever needed – and detailed information was provided speedily. The team were often ahead of us in anticipating developments and ready to respond. Nothing was too much trouble and nothing was left to chance. And the team were patient and so pleasant to deal with.“ – TL on Trustpilot.

Speak with an expert in brain injury claims

If you have suffered due to negligence during or after surgery, or any other form of medical negligence, we can advise you on your options moving forward.

Visit Brain Injury Claims to learn more about our services or Contact Us to arrange an initial consultation with an expert.

In contentious business, a solicitor may not calculate fees or other charges as a percentage or proportion of any award or settlement.

The name referenced throughout this case study is a pseudonym that has been put in place to protect the client’s privacy.