A woman who went into hospital for a routine day procedure but ended up losing eight pints of blood when an artery was torn has been awarded more than €855,000 damages by the High Court.
Mr Justice Kevin Cross said he accepted the expert evidence that Gina Van Amersfoorth’s pain and suffering is likely to persist for the rest of her life at its present level, if not worsen.
Ms Van Amersfoorth went into hospital for a routine diagnostic procedure on June 4th, 2002 to establish why she was unable to get pregnant, he said.
Unfortunately, while she was under anaesthetic, a surgical instrument known as a trocar was inserted in to her abdomen to allow telescopic examination but there was signficiant bleeding from a major blood vessel caused by the instrument, he said.
A consultant obstetrician, Dr John Corristine, had torn a main artery in her pelvis and also punctured a vein and the assistance of a vascular surgeon was required, he said.
Ms Van Amersfoorth (50), of Grenville, Portlaoise, Co Laois, had sued Dr Corristine, attached to Portlaoise General Hospital, now the Midland Regional Hospital and the HSE (then the Midland Health Board) over the incident.
Failure
It was claimed there was a failure to take adequate or proper precautions for her safety and to adequately check all equipment used during the lapasoscopy was in proper working order.
It was further claimed the trocar was inserted away from the mid line and too deeply in the pelvis, hitting against the posterior pelvic side wall on at least two occasions. As a result, an artery and vein were damaged.
Ms Van Amersfoorth suffered a major haemorrhage, losing at least eight pints of blood, and required ventilation and life support for two days afterwards. She was in hospital for six days in total.
The defendants admitted responsibility for the operation, the scar and the initial pain and suffering but disputed other claimed consequences such as abdominal pain were related to the incicent.
Mr Justice Cross found the woman’s ongoing abdominal pain is serious and significant and is as a result of the 2002 procedure. He said Ms Van Amersfoorth’s life has been siginficantly impaired as a result of what happened.
While many other plaintiffs in other cases have been more damaged than Ms Van Amersfoorth, it would be entirely inappropriate in any way to minimise what she has suffered, he said.