Geoghegan v. Harris [2000] IEHC 129; [2000] 3 IR 536 (21st June, 2000)

Geoghegan v. Harris [2000] IEHC 129; [2000] 3 IR 536 (21st June, 2000)

The court held that nerve damage, including the risk of chronic neuropathic pain, is a known complication of dental implant and bone graft procedures in the chin area. Despite the extreme rarity of chronic neuropathic pain, the duty of disclosure in elective surgery requires warning of any risk, however remote, if the consequences are grave. The defendant was therefore under a legal obligation to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain. The defendant’s failure to do so constituted a breach of duty, notwithstanding unanimous expert evidence that no warning was required. The issue of causation and quantum was deferred for later determination.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 129
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Geoghegan; Defendant: Dr David Harris
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Civil Action / Partial Judgment on Duty of Disclosure/informed Consent; Quantum and Further Factual Issues Deferred
Outcome
Partial judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of duty of disclosure; further issues reserved.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Duty of Disclosure, Elective Surgery, Causation, Material Risk, Professional Standard of Care
Medical Negligence Tort Law Informed Consent Duty of Disclosure Elective Surgery Causation Material Risk Professional Standard of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Geoghegan

Plaintiff

Dr David Harris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Medical Negligence Civil Action / Partial Judgment on Duty of Disclosure/informed Consent; Quantum and Further Factual Issues Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was obliged to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain as a material risk of the dental implant and bone graft procedure
  2. 2 Whether chronic neuropathic pain was a known or foreseeable complication of the procedure
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the duty of disclosure/informed consent

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that nerve damage, including the risk of chronic neuropathic pain, is a known complication of dental implant and bone graft procedures in the chin area. Despite the extreme rarity of chronic neuropathic pain, the duty of disclosure in elective surgery requires warning of any risk, however remote, if the consequences are grave. The defendant was therefore under a legal obligation to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain. The defendant’s failure to do so constituted a breach of duty, notwithstanding unanimous expert evidence that no warning was required. The issue of causation and quantum was deferred for later determination.

Court Disposition

Partial judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of duty of disclosure; further issues reserved.