Geoghegan v. Harris [2000] IEHC 65 (14th September, 2000)
The defendant violated the 5 mm safety margin during the bone graft procedure, causing loss of vitality and chronic neuropathic pain in the plaintiff's lower incisors. The breach of standard care directly resulted in the plaintiff's injuries, and the defendant failed to adequately inform the plaintiff of the surgical error and its consequences.
- Citation
- [2000] IEHC 65
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Geoghegan; Defendant: David Harris
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Medical Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Standard of Care, Dental Surgery
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Geoghegan
Plaintiff
David Harris
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence / High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the defendant violate the 5 mm safety margin during bone graft surgery?
- 2 Did the violation cause loss of vitality and neuropathic pain in the plaintiff's teeth?
- 3 Did the defendant fail to inform the plaintiff of possible surgical error and consequences?
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant violated the 5 mm safety margin during the bone graft procedure, causing loss of vitality and chronic neuropathic pain in the plaintiff's lower incisors. The breach of standard care directly resulted in the plaintiff's injuries, and the defendant failed to adequately inform the plaintiff of the surgical error and its consequences.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Defendant liable for medical negligence
- Plaintiff entitled to damages for pain, suffering, and dental injury
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment