Minister for Health Mr Martin has said he will study the implications of the Supreme Court ruling today that a woman whose ovary was removed by the now struck-off obstetrician Dr Michael Neary cannot sue him or the hospital where he worked because the action was statute barred.
Speaking following today's ruling, Mr Martin said the only people who could make "defining deliberations" on the matter were the judges of the Supreme Court. He could not predict what the court would do at any particular point in time, he said.
"I have to study the implications of that because I haven't seen the ruling or the judgment yet, and that's something I'll have to reflect on," Mr Martin said.
The Department of Health has said the minister will also seek legal advice on the judgment.
Dr Neary, whose work is being investigated by an independent commission, won his Supreme Court case against a woman suing him for removing one of her ovaries in 1991.
Ms Rosemary Cunningham sued Dr Neary, along with a nominee of the North Eastern Health Board and representatives of the Medical Missionaries of Mary, which runs Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, Co Louth, for what she contended was the unnecessary removal of her left ovary in 1991.
Ms Cunningham, of Corlea, Kingscourt, Co Cavan, took the case in March 2002. In October 2003 the doctor and the hospital failed in their attempt to halt proceedings on the basis that the legal action was statute barred, or out of time in law.
They argued Ms Cunningham's claim was invalid because she should have brought the case within three years of the operation.
In evidence to the High Court, Ms Cunningham said her GP told her the procedure was necessary and had saved her life. But after being admitted to the Coombe Hospital in Dublin for a hysterectomy in 1998, a nurse encouraged her to complain about her 1991 operation to the medical council.
Ms Cunningham also compained about what she said was Dr Neary's rudeness when she asked him why her ovaries were removed. She claimed he told her: "I did not like your bloody ovaries anyway . . . by church law, I should not have laid a finger on you and you should be six feet under. I saved your life and you should be grateful."
In a reserved judgment, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh ruled the three-year limit began to run from the time Ms Cunningham had knowledge the operation was unnecessary through a report from Dr Richard Porter in April 2001.
The respondents appealed to a three-judge panel at the Supreme Court - consisting of Mrs Justice McGuinness, presiding, with Mr Justice Hardiman and Mr Justice Fennelly - which today found in their favour.
Mr Justice Fennelly today said although Ms Cunningham was entitled to rely on the advice of her GP, who said the operation was necessary, the question was whether she took all reasonable steps to obtain advice and act on it.
"If the plaintiff had gone to a solicitor in December 1998 (after she made the medical council complaint), she would have obtained the sort of advice which would have made out a case of negligence against the defendant," said Mr Justice Fennelly.
Today's ruling could have implications for 60 to 70 women thought to have issued summonses in relation to what they claim were unnecessary obstetric operations performed on them at Our Lady's.
The Medical Council investigated similar claims by ten former patients and found the consultant guilty of professional misconduct in relation to and last year struck him off the register.
A judicial inquiry into Dr Neary's work began late last month and will examine records stretching back over a period of at least 30 years.
Dr Neary rejects the allegations.