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 defendant was under a legal obligation to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain as a known complication of nerve damage in the course of elective dental implant and bone graft surgery, regardless of the rarity of the risk. The failure to provide such a warning constituted a breach of duty, notwithstanding unanimous expert opinion that no warning was required, because Irish law (Walsh) mandates disclosure of any risk, however remote, of grave consequences in elective procedures. Causation and quantum are reserved for later determination.

Citation
[2000] 3 IR 536
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Geoghegan; Defendant: Dr David Harris
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / Partial Judgment on Duty of Disclosure/informed Consent; Quantum and Technical Negligence Deferred
Outcome
Defendant found in breach of duty for failure to warn; judgment on liability for non-disclosure; issues of technical negligence and quantum deferred.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, Duty of Disclosure, Medical Negligence, Elective Surgery, Causation
Medical Law Tort Law Informed Consent Duty of Disclosure Medical Negligence Elective Surgery Causation

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 / Partial Judgment on Duty of Disclosure/informed Consent; Quantum and Technical Negligence Deferred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was obliged to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain as a consequence of dental implant surgery and bone grafting.
  2. 2 Whether chronic neuropathic pain is a known or foreseeable complication of the procedure.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a warning constitutes a breach of duty under Irish law, particularly in elective surgery.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was under a legal obligation to warn the plaintiff of the risk of chronic neuropathic pain as a known complication of nerve damage in the course of elective dental implant and bone graft surgery, regardless of the rarity of the risk. The failure to provide such a warning constituted a breach of duty, notwithstanding unanimous expert opinion that no warning was required, because Irish law (Walsh) mandates disclosure of any risk, however remote, of grave consequences in elective procedures. Causation and quantum are reserved for later determination.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in breach of duty for failure to warn; judgment on liability for non-disclosure; issues of technical negligence and quantum deferred.