Written Answers. - Compensation Claims.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:
176
Proinsias De Rossa
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
if he will act in the case of a person (details supplied); his views on whether the treatment of the person since she discovered she had contracted hepatitis C, by his Department has been appropriate; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[28112/01]
The background to the case is as follows. The person concerned tested positive for hepatitis C in October 1997 while she and her family were resident in the State. Subsequently, she claimed travelling and subsistence expenses from the ex gratia scheme operated by the Blood Transfusion Service Board, now the Irish Blood Transfusion Service.
Theex gratia scheme was introduced in 1994 to ensure that persons who had contracted hepatitis C through the administration within the State of blood and blood products made available by the BTSB did not undergo any undue hardship in availing of medical treatment for their condition. The ex gratia payments are made on an interim basis, pending the award of compensation by the hepatitis C compensation tribunal or by the courts and are not contingent on continued residence within the State.
The BTSB madeex gratia payments totalling £2,061 to the person concerned between November 1997 and April 1998. Ex gratia payments are usually made on production of receipts. However, following representations from Positive Action in December 1997, arrangements were made to pay the person in advance. In order to continue making payments the BTSB required medical evidence that anti-D had in fact been administered to her. It wrote to the person on 5 June, 15 June and 7 July 1998 requesting this confirmation. No such confirmation has been provided to the BTSB to date. The BTSB ceased making ex gratia payments to the person in April 1998.
A serious dispute has emerged in this case between the person and the Western Health Board regarding the source of her hepatitis C infection. The person believes that the source was infected anti-D administered to her following the birth of her child in Castlebar hospital in March 1993. She alleges that a medical record was later altered to denote that anti-D was not administered. The board stated that its medical records show that anti-D was not administered to the person while she was under its care in March 1993.
The person's family requested the Garda to investigate whether anti-D was administered to her in Castlebar hospital and whether her hospital records had been materially altered. Gardaí visited the hospital on 28 October and 16 November 1998 regarding this investigation, and, at the request of the hospital, took a number of records away for forensic examination. Neither I nor the Western Health Board have been informed of the results of that examination.
In the circumstances it would not be appropriate to seek such information from the Garda authorities. However, I should say that the Western Health Board accepts that the person's record was amended, but is fully satisfied that the amended record reflects the accurate position which is that the person never received anti-D. The board does not accept that the record had been inappropriately changed and the medical consultant in charge of the person's care while in Castlebar hospital is adamant that the person never received the anti-D product.
The BTSB has had a sequencing test carried out on a blood sample from the person concerned. Tests carried out by the independent laboratory jointly run by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and the department of medical microbiology, University of Edinburgh, indicated that the source of the person's hepatitis C infection was not the anti-D product manufactured by the BTSB. The laboratory's findings are disputed by the person concerned.
My predecessor, Deputy Cowen, indicated on numerous occasions to the person concerned and her family that he considered that the hepatitis C compensation tribunal was the most appropriate forum in which to have this matter resolved. The tribunal has a statutory remit to determine causation on the balance of probabilities. On 30 June 1998 an offer was made to the person to arrange an early hearing on the causation issue alone, independent of considerations of compensation. In addition, as the person is now living abroad, my Department offered as an exceptional measure to arrange financial assistance for herself and her family to facilitate their attendance at the compensation tribunal. It was also explained to the person that while the tribunal does not normally compensate persons in respect of health care requirements, claimants to the tribunal who are ordinarily resident outside the State may apply to the tribunal for health care costs.
During 2000 the person's legal representatives informed my Department that their client would be attending the hepatitis C compensation tribunal and the necessary arrangements were made by my Department to cover the expenses which she would incur in attending the tribunal. As the hepatitis C compensation tribunal is independent in its operation of both myself and my Department, I am not in a position to confirm the outcome of the hearing. I understand from representations made on the person's behalf, however, that she withdrew her case from the compensation tribunal before any determination had been made, with the intention of pursuing the case directly through the High Court and I have been informed by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor that High Court proceedings have been initiated by her.
However, I remain of the view that the most expeditious way to resolve the matter is for the person to apply to return to the compensation tribunal as soon as possible. The tribunal has the confidence of the four support groups representing persons infected with hepatitis C through the administration of infected blood and blood products, and over 1,400 individuals have had their claims determined by the tribunal to date.
Question No. 177 answered with Question No. 173.
