On the 22nd February 2011, the team succeeded in negotiating a settlement of a case where there was a retained swab (following an elective Caesarean Section) which caused tubal infertility.
In 2008 the Plaintiff`s daughter was delivered in good condition by way of an elective Caesarean Section. The intra-operative checklist recorded (incorrectly) that the swab count was correct.
Post operatively, the Plaintiff, despite having physical signs and symptoms, which should have alerted the medical staff that all was not well, was discharged home. Some days later, the Plaintiff was re-admitted and underwent surgery to determine the cause of her illness. At the surgery, an abscess cavity was found, from which was drained 300mls of pus. A 45cm x 45cm "sponge" was located and removed from the abdominal cavity. The Plaintiff attended for almost 1 year at follow up outpatient attendances and had further investigations to include an MRI scan. However, the findings of the MRI scan which indicated that the Plaintiff`s fertility had probably been compromised was not communicated to the Plaintiff, instead, she was told that it was in order to try to conceive.
It was not until the Plaintiff was examined by an independent medical expert (instructed by Cantillons Solicitors) that she became aware that her fertility was compromised. The expert recommended further investigations be performed. The Plaintiff then underwent a surgical procedure and was diagnosed as having tubal infertility. Accordingly, the Plaintiff spent almost 14 months trying to conceive when, there was, in reality, no prospects of conception during that period. The Plaintiff believed that time was not on her side (she was in her mid 30s) and, was very angry that precious time was lost. The medical evidence was that although the Plaintiff had tubal infertility there was a prospect that she could conceive with IVF. Therefore, this was a case that warranted expedition as any delay would have impacted on the Plaintiff`s fertility. In fairness the Defendant`s solicitors recognised this and the case was compromised within six months of issuing proceedings.