Court overturns refusal of award in HIV blood product infection

Hard to reconcile compensation for wife, but not for daughter, judge said

The man and his wife went to considerable lengths to keep his condition secret, the High Court heard.
The man and his wife went to considerable lengths to keep his condition secret, the High Court heard.

The High Court has overturned the Hepatitis C compensation tribunal's refusal to make an award for psychological suffering and shock to a woman whose father died from a HIV infection from contaminated blood products.

The tribunal had described his death as one of the worst cases before it.

Mr Justice Bernard Barton has ordered that the matter be sent back to the tribunal "for assessment and award".

It was hard to reconcile the making in 2009 of an award to the man’s wife over what the tribunal described as the “horrific” circumstances of his death and then not find in favour of the daughter for circumstances that were also horrific, the judge said.

READ SOME MORE

The daughter, who was a teenager when he died and is now in her forties, had appealed to the court against the Minister for Health and Children, with the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal as a notice party, over the tribunal’s February 2015 decision to dismiss her claim.

Her father suffered from severe Haemophilia A, a genetic deficiency in the body’s natural clotting system which causes increased bleeding and usually affects males.

He was one of more than 100 haemophilia sufferers who received blood transfusions which were contaminated. He contracted HIV and died from complications from the disease in 1989, at the age of 40.

Painful illnesses

In 2009, the tribunal made an award to his wife over the shock she suffered as a result of the circumstances leading up to and after his death.

“He had a very great number of serious, often very painful illnesses and a very hard death. He was completely shattered, obviously, by the knowledge that he had HIV,” the tribunal said.

At the time, 1989, there was little appreciation by medics and hospitals as to how to deal with HIV patients or how to deal with their families, the tribunal said.

The manner in which his corpse was dealt with left his widow with a lasting shock.

He and his wife went to considerable lengths to keep his condition secret. Mr Justice Barton, in dealing with the daughter’s claim, said, despite her parents efforts at secrecy, privacy was difficult to achieve in the small house the family lived in. Conversations and noises, including uncontrolled bouts of crying by the husband, were easily overheard.

At the time of the man’s death, he was only the seventh known Aids sufferer to die in Ireland and the first in his home town, the judge said.

The stigma which attached at the time to death in such circumstances was not just social, but medical, he said.

Isolation

Patient isolation, face masks, hand washing and the way in which the corpse was dealt with — the body was not laid out but zipped up in body bag and put in a sealed coffin — were examples of that.

Mourners at the funeral questioned the circumstances and were overheard by the daughter, the judge said.

The mother “created an elaborate fiction” to ensure the cause of death remained hidden by telling everyone he died of cancer.

Despite knowing what was really going on, the daughter hid it from her mother and went along with the socially acceptable explanation. Her mother did not know this, or if she did, chose to believe otherwise, the judge said.

The daughter started to smoke and to drink alcohol in her teens to help her cope with a progressively deteriorating situation.

She partially took on the role of looking after her younger siblings after her mother’s health collapsed.

She managed to complete her education and get a good job but ended up with a child in a “hopelessly unsuitable marriage” and her health deteriorated. She became seriously depressed, and was admitted to hospital in 2006 with the illness which she continues to suffer from.

While the tribunal was not satisfied she had met the requirements for shock induced illness, the judge accepted her evidence about the impact of the death on her psychologically.

The judge allowed her appeal and remitted the matter back to the tribunal “for assessment and award”.