A young man's stomach was unnecessarily removed after he was wrongly diagnosed with cancer arising from his tissue sample being mixed up with that of a 70-year-old cancer patient at St Vincent's hospital in Dublin, the High Court was told yesterday.
Because of the operation, Alan O'Gorman will probably never be able to work full-time, can only eat small meals, cannot digest Vitamin B12 and certain other minerals, has to have Vitamin B12 injections on a regular basis and is at risk of osteoporosis and his bones aging 20 years prematurely, counsel said. Mark de Blacam was opening the action by Mr O'Gorman, now aged 26, of The Close, Fox Lodge Woods, Ratoath, Co Meath, alleging negligence in his treatment.
The action is against a representative of St Vincent's hospital and six other defendants. They are Ritu Guai Kapur, a pathology registrar at the hospital; three technicians - Robert Geraghty, Bernie Curran and John Harford; Daniel K Sheahan, a consultant histo-pathologist; and Justin Geoghegan, a consultant surgeon. The defendants have denied the claims.
Mr de Blacam said Mr O'Gorman's appendix was removed in February 2002. During that procedure, an area of inflammation was noted on his stomach, suggestive of a perforated gastric ulcer and a tissue sample was taken and sent for frozen section.
During that process, it is claimed Mr O'Gorman's tissue sample was mixed up with that of another patient, a 70-year-old man who was suffering from cancer. After analysis of that sample, a diagnosis of cancer was made in Mr O'Gorman's case.
Mr O'Gorman's stomach was removed on March 19th, 2002, as a result but, after it was analysed and found to have no evidence of gastric cancer, the mix-up in tissue samples was discovered, the court heard.
Mr O'Gorman and his family were very upset on being told he had cancer, and they had requested and got a second opinion from two other doctors, Mr de Blacam said.
However, those opinions were based on the incorrect information that his tissue sample showed he had cancer and those second opinions confirmed the view taken by Dr Geoghegan that the stomach procedure - a gastrectomy - was necessary.
Mr O'Gorman also agreed to the operation on the understanding a partial gastrectomy would be carried out initially, and that further tests would be carried out before a full gastrectomy was performed, it is claimed.
Mr de Blacam said his side were initially told the tissues samples had become mixed up because Ms Kapur had pricked her finger with a sharp object in the pathology laboratory, and had left the laboratory for medical attention. Later, they were told Ms Kapur had had to go to a prearranged meeting with another physician and this had led to the mix-up of the samples.
Ms Kapur denied the samples were mixed up. If mixed up, she denied she was responsible, counsel added.
An expert in risk management from the UK would tell the court there was a "systems failure" at the hospital and had alleged Ms Kapur should not have started a process she failed to complete.
The expert would say it was not acceptable practice to leave halfway through a tissue analysis.
Mr O'Gorman would also claim the diagnosis of cancer being extremely unusual in a person so young, should have been confirmed by other tests.
The case continues.
