St Vincent's University Hospital in Dublin and its pathology department were responsible for the "dreadful error" of mislabelling a tissue sample that led to the stomach of a young man being unnecessarily removed because it was wrongly believed he had stomach cancer, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Vivian Lavan yesterday directed that the hospital must pay €450,000 damages to Alan O'Gorman (26), after finding that the error leading to the "totally unnecessary" removal of his stomach, described by a healthcare risk consultant as "an elementary error of the most fundamental kind", had occurred in the pathology department.
However, because none of the four pathology department defendants was called in evidence, the judge said he was left in the unsatisfactory position of being unable to conclude who was actually responsible for the mislabelling of Mr O'Gorman's tissue sample with that of a 70-year-old man who had stomach cancer.
Two of these defendants were innocent and two responsible, he said. However, while he was finding that the error occurred in the pathology department, the proper form of court investigation into the matter had been "precluded by a decision, tactical or strategic", taken by the hospital.
The judge noted that the hospital had said it took responsibility for the employees involved in the mix-up of the samples.
In the circumstances, the judge ruled, Mr O'Gorman must succeed against the hospital and four defendants: Ritu Guai Kapur, a pathology registrar at the hospital, and three technicians in the pathology department, Robert Geraghty, Bernie Curran and John Harford.
Mr Justice Lavan also said it would be unfair, in the "unusual circumstances" of the case, to make a finding of negligence against surgeon Dr Justin Geoghegan, who performed the operation on Mr O'Gorman after receiving the wrong tissue sample.
He fully accepted evidence that Dr Geoghegan could not be faulted in relation to his management and treatment of Mr O'Gorman, the judge said. He rejected the hospital's claim for indemnity against Dr Geoghegan on grounds of its claim that he had an "absolutely closed mind" on the diagnosis of cancer and should have carried out additional procedures to check that diagnosis.
A surgeon "is not expected to be a pathologist" given the sophisticated pathology department provided by the hospital that was relied upon by consultant surgeons since the department was created, he said.
In failing to call evidence from that department, the hospital had placed Dr Geoghegan in a most invidious position with regard to vindicating his professional reputation.
Mr Justice Lavan was delivering his reserved judgment on liability for an agreed sum of €450,000 damages to be paid to Mr O'Gorman arising from the stomach operation carried out four years ago at the hospital.
Mr O'Gorman, The Close, Fox Lodge Woods, Ratoath, Co Meath, had alleged negligence in his treatment by the hospital and six other defendants: Ms Kapur and the three technicians; Dr Daniel K Sheahan, a consultant histo-pathologist at the hospital; and Dr Geoghegan.
All had denied the claim.
