THE SUPREME Court has ruled that a €5,000 award from the hepatitis C compensation tribunal to a husband, for loss of earnings for bringing his wife, who has hepatitis C, to medical consultations is final. This prevents the man bringing a second claim despite his having given up his job since to care full-time for his wife after her health significantly deteriorated.
Ms Justice Susan Denham said that while this was "a very sad case", the court had to address issues of law "and not social policy". The Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal Act 1997 did not provide for the type of award claimed and perhaps it was a matter the Oireachtas "may address", she added.
The man had sought to bring a second loss-of-earnings claim on grounds that, since the first claim was made, he had had to leave his job to look after his wife full-time because her health had deteriorated. He had appealed to the Supreme Court on points of law arising from the High Court's decision that, under the 1997 Act, he could not bring a fresh claim.
In 1997 the man made claims to the tribunal. He was awarded €5,000 for loss of earnings in relation to the cost of bringing his wife to medical consultations. The tribunal described that award as final and it was not appealed.
After that award was made, the man claimed that, due to his wife's deteriorating health, he had to leave his job in 1999 and care for her full-time from 2000.
In March 2003, he made a claim to the tribunal under two headings: 1) as a person responsible for the care of a person with hepatitis C and; 2) for losses suffered due to being married to someone suffering with hepatitis C. He told the tribunal of the previous claim.
In October 2004, the tribunal awarded him €100,000 for loss of consortium (company) of his wife. However, because of the 1997 award on loss of earnings, it ruled he could not succeed on a second claim for loss of earnings.
The man challenged that decision in High Court proceedings, lost and appealed to the Supreme Court on issues of law relating to interpretation of the 1997 Act.
The Supreme Court, with Ms Justice Denham presiding, sitting with Ms Justice Fidelma Macken and Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, dismissed the appeal.
Mr Justice Finnegan said the High Court was correct in finding the tribunal's award in 1997 for loss of earnings acted as a bar to a future claim for special damages.
He held that the Supreme Court did not have discretion, under the amended provisions of the 1997 Act, to make an award for financial loss and expense. The scheme of the 1997 Act made it quite clear that an acceptance of an award brought finality to all claims.
Ms Justice Denham said the fact that the man had not contemplated future financial loss and expense did not enable a further claim.
