The High Court has determined that a hospital cannot be held responsible for the mental trauma inflicted on a woman who observed her husband’s swift health decline prior to his death from lung cancer. Carmel Germaine tragically developed an adjustment disorder, allegedly triggered by the sudden and terrifying decline in the health of her husband, Thomas Germaine, a resident of Lucan, Dublin, who passed away on February 14th, 2019.
Despite expressing deep sympathy for Ms. Germaine, who has unquestionably endured mental distress as well as the loss of her spouse, Justice Emily Egan found no grounds to rule in her favour. She noted that St James’s Hospital in Dublin conceded to a failure in their duty of care when they did not immediately notify an abnormality in Mr Germaine’s October 2018 lung X-ray that was taken amidst the monitoring of a different, but since resolved ailment.
Even though this X-ray may have facilitated an earlier diagnosis, both parties acknowledged that the cancer was already beyond cure at this stage, and hence, his treatment or prognosis would not have been impacted. Consequently, the judge stated that the overlooked discrepancy was not the cause of his ailment.
Relying on a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, Justice Egan said it outlines five criteria to award damages for “nervous shock” resulting from a recognised mental disorder due to witnessing a family member’s death or injury caused by medical negligence. In this instance, two of the five parameters were not met.
Moreover, Mary Day, the CEO of St James’s Hospital and the defendant on behalf of the hospital, argued that the hospital did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care, which is a third requirement. However, Justice Egan refrained from making a judgement on this argument.
Ms Germaine claimed that the deteriorating health of her husband, which resulted in his death from metastic lung cancer in February 2019, could have been prevented if St James’s Hospital had correctly diagnosed his condition after his x-ray in October 2018. She insisted that had the diagnosis been correct, they could have adopted palliative care strategies, thus slowing down or avoiding the rapid deterioration in his health that she witnessed.
Equipped with this knowledge, she believes that she would have been given a chance to come to grips with his condition, sparing her the shock and trauma triggered by his abrupt decline. Ms Germaine argued that she was due a duty of care from the hospital to prevent such a foreseeable harm.
Representatives for St James’s Hospital, backed by the State Claims Agency, refuted her claim, stating that her husband’s health deterioration was a steady process rather than an abrupt, shocking event.
The presiding judge concurred, ruling that the shock suffered by Ms Germaine was not induced by a sudden terrible event fitting the court’s definition. The judge further determined that Ms Germaine could not prove that the hospital’s negligent actions or lack thereof, was responsible for her husband’s health decline, which she deemed would have happened regardless. The judge stated that Ms Germaine’s claim that her psychological shock resulted from being unprepared to witness her husband’s deterioration could not be supported.
The judge also declined to make a judgement on the claim that the hospital had a duty of care towards a “bystander”, stating that resolving this point would not alter the result of the trial and highlighting that it is a significant and complex issue that would require further legal discussion.