The Plaintiff was in her early 20’s and attended her GP in April 2005 with a lump in her breast. She was referred on to the Defendant hospital breast clinic.

She attended the Defendant hospital in the middle of July 2005 which was three weeks later. At that stage, she had an 8mm mobile lump in her breast and was referred for an ultrasound three weeks later.

In early August 2005 the Plaintiff attended the Defendant hospital and an ultrasound was carried out. Microcysts were diagnosed and the Plaintiff was referred home.

The lump in her breast continued to grow and by February 2006, the Plaintiff returned to her GP. Seven days later, having been referred again by her GP the Plaintiff attended the Defendant’s breast clinic during the third week in February. At that stage she was found to have a large lump in her breast. She was again referred for further breast imaging which was delayed for a further six weeks. A diagnosis of breast cancer therefore was not made until the first week of April 2006 (a delay of 8 months). By that stage, the tumour in her breast was inoperable.

The Plaintiff was commenced on extensive chemotherapy. Unfortunately, whilst the tumour reduced in size the Plaintiff underwent a mastectomy 8 months later in December 2006. Prior to that because of changes found on PET scanning, secondaries were thought to have emerged in other areas of her body including her spleen. Her spleen was also removed. Unfortunately, it would seem that there was no cancer in her spleen or indeed in any other areas suspected and the general view by both the hospital and the experts involved in the case was that it was either due to a vaccine or the Plaintiff having contracted an old virus some time previously.

The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendants were negligent in failing to carry out a biopsy when she attended for the ultrasound in August 2005, failure to refer her to a consultant when the ultrasound hadn’t been carried out and failure to diagnose the cancer in her breast resulting in a delay of 8 months. This rendered the Plaintiff to a life threatening situation reducing her life expectancy.

The Defendants delivered a Defence admitting that they failed or neglected to review the Plaintiff and the results of the ultrasound examination which took place in August 2005 and failed to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the Plaintiff attended for treatment. However, the Defendants also pleaded that whilst they admitted that her condition worsened over the period of delay of 8 months, their Defence was that they “caught it in time” according to their Counsel.

Proceedings were initiated on behalf of the Plaintiff in October 2006 and a Trial date was obtained for April 2008. The case settled 2 months before Trial for the sum of €400,000.00 plus costs

03 September 2008

    Gillian and all at Augustus Cullen Law, A million thanks for a great job done. Justice for our son at last!!

    Catherine, Liam & William

    Dear Michael, A great result was achieved because of your efforts and we were truly blessed to have you on our side.

    Kathleen, Medical Negligence Client

    Dear Joice…you are and have been very professional, sympathetic and dignified in all of your dealings with us and I put that down to one simple fact. You listened.

    James, Medical Negligence Client

    Geraldine, Thank you most sincerely for all your hard work and commitment to these children.

    Freda McKittrick, Head of Barnardos Beacon Guardian Ad Litem service

    Neil is an absolute gentleman to deal with – kind, tactful and very efficient. We could not praise him highly enough. He brought us through a horrible time.

    Sean, Medical Negligence Client

    Many thanks again for a job well done. We really appreciate all your hard work and practical advice.

    Corporate client in a commercial litigation matter

    Dear Jamie, You and your team in ACL were so professional, diligent and prompt. I have recommended you and the firm, and will continue to do so

    Lorraine McCarthy

    Gus Cullen and the firm’s approach to addressing the key issues was professional, yet personal, efficient yet attentive.

    BB

    The process is a difficult one and when you deal with people who are so professional and yet genuine/real people, it makes it so much easier... so thanks a million.

    Julie

    Request a Callback