€60k Caesarean Section Injury Compensation Sought by 15-year-old Boy
A 15-year-old boy who claims that he sustained a wound to his face during when his mother was undergoing a Cesarean section has submitted a €60,000 birth injury compensation action against the master of the National Maternity Hospital and Dr Stephen Carroll, the surgeon who carried out the procedure.
The boy in question, Rory Saunders and his mother Noeleen Saunders, of Silchester Park, Glenageary, told Circuit Court president Mr Justice Raymond Groarke through his legal representative barrister Mark O’Connell that his cheek was cut at the time during the delivery.
Mr O’Connell told Justice Groarke that the Cesarean section compensation action was due to the consequences of the actions that were taken during Rory’s birth on September 9, 2003. The scalpel used in the clinical procedure by Dr Carroll cut Rory’s left cheek. Once the birth was completed the wound was cleaned and Steri-Strips were put in place.
There is now a permanent 2.5cm scar on Rory’s cheek, which is visible to anyone standing close to him. The wound, Judge Groarke was advised, is more visible during the summer months. In addition to this, the scar has become a source of stress for Rory after he had been on the receiving end of negative teasing and mocking at school and among his friends.
The claims in relation to medical negligence were denied by Dr Carroll, who is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist and a specialist in high-risk pregnancies, and the National Maternity Hospital. Plastic surgeon Matt McHugh said that they were of the opinion that the wound was not going to improve in the future.
Judge Groarke was given the medical reports of two eminent consultants into court and was also informed that a birth injury compensation offer of €25,000 had been made.
Judge Groarke said he was not happy with the medical negligence compensation offer before the court and added that one medical report appeared to give “a very blunt view” on the matter. He felt the specialist in question, who had not seen his colleague’s medical report before providing an opinion, should be asked to look over the other medical report to see if there was any new information for him to consider.
The hearing was adjourned until the medical reports had been reconsidered by their both parties.