Scar Injury Claims

A €27,500 dog attack compensation settlement has been approved for a schoolboy (11) who was bitten by a neighbour’s greyhound and left with a serious laceration on his leg. Milan Nasyron, aged 9 at the time, was attacked when he was putting his bicycle in a communal basement car park at a residential development at Clarehall, Malahide Road, Dublin whee he lived on May 25 2017. His legal representative, Barrister Kevin D’Arcy advised the court that dog owner and defendant Ms Fiona Coggins, had permitted the greyhound to walk about without an appropriate required muzzle, despite the dog being involved in a number of previous attacks. Judge Mr Justice Raymond Groarke was advised that Ms Coggins did not have adequate control of her dog when Milan arrived home. The boy attempted to put his bicycle in a parking slot at the car park when the dog had gone for him. The attack had come from the direction of Ms Coggins’ car parking place. The dog attack punctured the rear of Milan’s left thigh and he had been thrown forward in the attack adding further injuries and scarring his right knee. The boy got away from the dog by running to the nearby elevator. Due to his injuries, Milan was taken to the Temple Street Hospital’s emergency department where his cuts were cleaned and dressed. He was also given antibiotics and it was noted that he had half inch scar on his right knee and a small puncture scar on the back of his left thigh. The court was told, Milan had shown a fear of dogs and developed anxiety since the attack. He had submitted took the dog bite compensation action against his neighbour Fiona Coggins through his mother Evita Hoverun, Presiding Judge Groarke said he felt that the €27,500 settlement offer for the boy was appropriate and he gave it an approval with an order for costs.

A boy, who was left with permanent scars on his face and severe dental damage, has received a settlement of compensation from the owners of the dog which inflicted the injuries. Following being attacked and bitten in the face by a neighbour’s dog 15-year-old schoolboy, Adam Russell was today awarded €32,000 compensation for personal injuries. Adam Russell (12 years of age at the time of the attack) was playing while visiting the home Erica Deacon and Eoin Gibson in the Ballinclea Heights estate in Killiney on 28 September 2013. While he was playing, Deacon and Gibson’s German Pointer dog suddenly attacked him. The dog knocked him to the ground, and bit him on the face. Adam was rushed him to the Swiftcare Clinic, Dundrum, Dublin. Medical staff at the facility treated the lacerations to his face. The injury inflicted to his nose was sutured and the wound just below his lower lip had been closed with surgical glue. The injury suffered to his tooth was diagnosed, but was treated at a later date by dentists at Dalkey Dental Clinic. Through his father, Adam made a claim for dog injury compensation against the owners of the dog. Counsel for Adam Russell, Brian Sugrue, advised Circuit Court President Justice Raymond Groarke that Adam Russell, who was 12 at the time of the attack, was bitten on his face by the dog while playing with it, and that the dog’s owners should have been more attentive of the situation that Adam was in. “Adam suffered three specific face wounds,” Sugrue stated.  “He sustained a significant laceration to the bridge of his nose, a puncture wound to his lower lip and a chip fracture to one of his upper teeth.” Mr Sugrue said Adam Russell’s injured tooth would possibly need a crown in the future but part of the €32,000 dog attack compensation settlement offer took future dental work into account. Consultant Plastic Surgeon Patricia Eadie was brought in to consult on the case and advise the court on the extent of Adam’s injuries. She had examined Adam’s scars late in 2016 and said that revision surgery may be necessary. The scarring he suffered on his nose is permanent. Judge Groarke was advised that Mr Sugrue was recommending acceptance of the €32,000 compensation offer.  He commented this was within the ball park of compensation for such injuries, though was not to be considered generous.  The compensation offer was approved. As Adam is currently a minor, it will be invested in court funds until Adam becomes 18 years of age in 2019.

A judge at the Circuit Civil Court has put the approval of an eyebrow scar injury compensation settlement on hold until further medical reports are received. The proposed settlement of eyebrow scar injury compensation was intended to compensate a four-year-old girl for an injury she suffered while travelling with her mother on a Dublin bus in 2015. Although strapped into her buggy, the girl – who was aged twenty-two months at the time – had hit her head on an upright support when the bus driver braked sharply to avoid a collision with an unmarked garda car. The girl´s mother had taken her to Temple Street Children´s Hospital, where a cut on the young girl´s eyebrow was cleaned and sealed with seristrips. The girl subsequently developed a fear of being put into her buggy and was also seen by her GP in relation to a soft tissue injury. Although a barely visible scar remains, it is possible the girl´s eyebrow will not develop normally. Through her mother, the girl made an eyebrow scar injury compensation claim against Dublin Bus and the Garda Commissioner. Liability for the girl´s injury was admitted, and an offer of eyebrow scar injury compensation amounting to €10,000 was forthcoming. However, as the claim had been made on behalf of a child, the offer of compensation had to be approved by a judge before the settlement could be made final. At the Circuit Civil Court, Mr Justice Raymond Groarke heard the circumstances of the accident and the injury that the young girl had suffered. On inspection of the eyebrow, Judge Groarke said he could still see a visible scar and it was difficult to tell if the girl had made a complete recovery. He added he was reluctant to approve the proposed settlement until a medical report was prepared on how the injury may interfere with the growth of eyebrow hair in the girl´s later life. He subsequently adjourned the approval hearing for six weeks.

The High Court has approved a €100,000 settlement of compensation for a scar due to an adverse reaction in favour of a three-year-old girl. Sophia Ryan was born on the 19th October 2012 at the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin seventeen weeks premature. Immediately after her birth, Sophia was transferred to the Special Care Baby Unit, where she was administered medication via a series of catheters. Prior to the insertion of the catheters, Sophia´s skin had been cleaned with chlorhexidine – a different antisepsis lotion from the povidone-iodine usually used on premature babies – as part of the National Children´s Research Centre´s “SKA trial”. Sophia´s mother – Anne – had given permission for the lotion to be used on Sophia after being assured that it would not have any side effects or cause her daughter any discomfort. However, the morning after Sophia´s birth, nurses noticed she was distressed and had redness and ulcerations on her back. The condition was attributed to an adverse reaction to the chlorhexidine. Sophia was administered morphine to provide pain relief and a cream used to prevent bacterial skin infections – Fucidim – was applied to her skin. When a plastics specialist noted that Sophia had suffered a deep dermal skin burn on her back, the Fucidim treatment was discontinued and an alternate cream applied. Sophia´s condition improved, but she has been left with discoloured skin and a scar on her back that was likened by a consultant paediatric dermatologist in May 2014 as being similar to a chemical burn. Through her father – Tom – Sophia claimed compensation for a scar due to an adverse reaction against the National Maternity Hospital; alleging that her mother would never have consented to the application of chlorhexidine had she been aware about the potential side effects. The hospital made an offer of compensation for a scar due to an adverse reaction without an admission of liability, at the approval hearing at the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Humphries was told that Sophie will likely need a skin graft in the future to hide the discolouration and permanent scar. On hearing the details of the hospital´s offer of €100,000, Judge Humphries approved the settlement of compensation for a scar due to an adverse reaction and ordered that the hospital also pay the Ryan´s legal costs.

A permanent scar compensation claim has been resolved at the High Court with the approval of a €106,000 settlement in favour of a seventeen-year-old girl. In August 2009, Shauna Burke from Corbally in County Limerick was on holiday with her family at Slattery´s Caravan Park in Lahinch, County Clare, when she lacerated her leg on a nail that was allegedly protruding from a box attached to a pole. Shauna – who was ten years old at the time – received medical treatment for her injury, but – now seventeen years of age – has a permanent visible scar above her knee. On Shauna´s behalf, John Burke – her father – made a permanent scar compensation claim against the owner of the caravan park – Austin Francis Slattery. Slattery denied that he was liable for Shauna´s injury and the resulting scar, but agreed to a €106,000 settlement of the permanent scar compensation claim – made up of €90,000 for Shauna´s pain and suffering and €16,000 for her future medical care. As the permanent scar compensation claim had been made on behalf of a child, the offer of settlement had to be approved by a judge to ensure it was in Shauna´s best interests. Consequently at the High Court, Mr Justice Anthony Barr heard allegations that the nail on which Shauna cut her leg was a hazard that should have been removed due to it being located in an area often frequented by guests at the caravan park. After inspecting the scar, Judge Barr said that the proposed settlement of the permanent scar compensation claim was a good one and that he was happy to approve it. Because Shauna is still a legal minor, the judge ordered that the settlement should be paid into court funds, where it will remain in an interest yielding account until Shauna´s eighteenth birthday.

A pony ride injury compensation claim, made by a woman left with a permanent scar after her accident, has been settled during a hearing to establish liability. Maria Gray (35) – a dentist from Belfast – was among a group of friends having a hen weekend in Galway when she went on a pony trek at Feeney’s Riding School in Thonabrocky on 15th July 2013. The trek started without incident but, as the party slowly descended a steep incline, the legs of Maria´s pony buckled and Maria fell from the saddle. Maria sustained a deep cut on her chin and a wrist injury. She was taken to hospital, where the cut was cleaned and stitched, but she now has a permanent scar that is visible to her patients. Maria´s wrist injury deteriorated and she had to undergo eight weeks of physiotherapy – during which time she was unable to work because of a splint on her arm. After seeking legal advice, Maria made a pony ride injury compensation claim against the owners of the riding school – Gerard and Siobhan Feeney. In her legal action, Maria alleged that pony was too small for her 5 foot 8½ inches frame and was only suitable for a child under the age of fourteen. She also claimed that the school had not given her adequate instruction on how to ride the pony. The Feeney´s denied that the pony was too small for Maria, and argued that she had been offered a larger pony to ride, but had declined the opportunity. Without the riding school owner´s consent to carry out an assessment, the Injuries Board issued Maria with an authorisation to pursue her pony ride injury compensation claim through the courts. The hearing to determine liability opened before Mr Justice Raymond Fullam at the High Court last week. Maria told the judge it was her belief that the pony had already been out on a trek earlier on that very hot day. Consequently it was hungry and tired, and kept stopping to eat grass. She added that the pony was only suitable for a child under fourteen years of age because of its age. Before the second day of the hearing could get underway, the judge was told that the parties had come to an agreement and the pony ride injury compensation claim could be struck.

A judge at the Circuit Civil Court has approved the settlement of a teenager´s sports injury compensation claim after a previous offer was rejected. In June 2012, Rhian Holohan from Kentstown in County Meath was just fifteen years of age when she was playing in a game of soccer between Kentstown Rovers FC and Ayrfield United in the Dublin Women´s Soccer League. Rhian was playing in goal and, as she dived to make a save, she cut her knee on a piece of broken glass that was on the surface of the pitch. The game was stopped so that Rhian could receive first aid treatment and she was taken to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda. At the hospital Rhian´s lacerated knee was cleaned and sutured under anaesthetic. Because of the depth of the cut, Rhian experienced months of pain and swelling and had to use crutches for support. She was unable to play football again for several months and now has a visible 1.5 cm circular scar on her knee. Rhian made a sports injury compensation claim against Dublin City Council, the Trustees of Dublin Women´s Soccer League and the Trustees of Ayrfield United FC through her mother, Anita. Liability for Rhian´s cut knee injury was accepted by the three defendants. A settlement of €22,000 was negotiated, but because the sports injury compensation claim was made on behalf of a minor, the settlement first had to be approved by the court. Consequently Mr Justice Raymond Groarke was told how Rhian suffered her sports injury and its consequences. Judge Groarke considered the original offer of settlement inappropriate to the level of injury that Rhian had sustained, and he asked the parties to reconsider the offer. Following further negotiations, the offer of settlement was increased to €30,000. Judge Groarke approved the revised settlement and closed the case.

A Circuit Court judge has approved a €25,000 settlement of a girl´s claim for compensation for being injured on the Luas. On 14th February 2008, six-year-old Aoife Heron boarded a Luas ahead of her mother at Connelly Street. Aoife´s mother – Elaine – was pushing a buggy containing Aoife´s younger sister, but failed to get inside the train before the doors closed – trapping the buggy between them. The automatic doors opened again, allowing Elaine to retrieve the buggy; but, as Aoife attempted to join her mother and sister on the platform, the automatic doors closed once again – trapping Aoife´s head between them. Aoife suffered a head injury, which was treated at Connelly Street by an ambulance crew. She was later examined by the family GP, who diagnosed soft tissue damage to Aoife´s head and a small amount of bruising. As a result of the accident, Aoife has a scar on her head and has developed a phobia about travelling on the Luas. The family´s GP has said that Aoife may need psychotherapy in the future to overcome her fear. On her daughter´s behalf, Elain Heron from Raheny in Dublin claimed compensation for being injured on the Luas against Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Ltd – the operators of the Luas – for negligence and breach of duty. The transport company initially denied liability and prepared a full defence against the claim. However, after a period of negotiation, the two parties agreed to a settlement of €25,000 in compensation for being injured on the Luas. At the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin, Court President Mr Justice Raymond Groarke heard about Aoife´s accident and the injuries she had sustained. He approved the settlement of compensation for being injured on the Luas, which will be held in court funds until Aoife (who is now thirteen years old) reaches the age of eighteen.

A County Westmeath postman has successfully claimed injury compensation for being attacked by a dog while trying to deliver post to a house in Kilbeggan. Sixty-three year old Joseph Dunne from Kilbeggan, County Westmeath, was attempting to deliver post to house in Kilbeggan when, on 8th October 2008, a husky-type dog escaped from the garden of the house through a hole in the hedge and attacked him. Joseph was knocked to the pavement by the dog, who continued to claw and bite him while the terrified postman was lying on the floor. Fortunately a passer-by was able to stop the attack by hitting the dog across the back with a stick and Joseph was rushed to hospital. At the hospital, Joseph was treated for lacerations to the right side of his face and received twenty-two stitches. He also have to receive treatment for nerve damage just below his forehead and, once the stitches from his cuts were removed, he had to undergo plastic surgery to hide the worst of his scars. Joseph returned to his postal duties soon after the attack, but made a claim for injury compensation for being attacked by the dog against the animal´s owners – Olive Dalton and Martin Maher of Dublin Road, Kilbeggan. The couple denied their liability for Joseph´s injuries, despite having had the dog put down following the attack, and the case was heard at the High Court in Dublin. At the High Court, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty heard Ms Dalton and Mr Maher denying that they had been negligent in failing to enclose their garden securely and allowing the dog to escape; however the judge found in Joseph´s favour and, awarding him €55,000 injury compensation for being attacked by a dog, commended Joseph for returning to work so quickly after his frightening incident.

A binman is to receive compensation for being burned by hot oil at work after a hearing at the Circuit Civil Court. Kamil Kozlowski (30) from Part West Point in Dublin feared that he would go blind after a hydraulic cable on the back of the garbage truck he was emptying bins into burst, and sprayed him in the face with hot oil. The accident – which occurred in Sandyford Road in Dublin in July 2011 – was quickly attended by an ambulance crew, who applied first aid at the scene of the accident and then took Kamil to the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital in Dublin. At the hospital, Kamil had his eyes rinsed and was prescribed eye drops; however, Kamil continued to experience pain in his left eye and it was a month before his vision returned to normal. Kamil sought legal advice, and made a claim for compensation for being burned by hot oil at work against his employers; claiming that they had breached their duty of care by failing to maintain the garbage truck to an acceptable standard. His employers – Panda Waste Services Ltd of Navan, County Meath – admitted their liability for Kamil´s injury, but the company´s insurers could not reach a satisfactory settlement of the claim with Kamil´s legal advisers. Consequently, the claim for being burned by hot oil at work was presented to Judge Alison Lindsay at the Circuit Civil Court, who – after hearing the circumstances of Kamil´s accident and injury – awarded him €15,565 compensation.

A cleaning worker at the Rivercourt Hotel in Kilkenny, who lost part of her small finger when it was cut by a door slamming shut on it, has settled her hotel employee door injury claim in the High Court. Aneta Antoszcsyk (35) made her hotel employee door injury claim for compensation after losing the tip of her little finger on her left hand in a freak occurence. While Aneta was taking away a wooden door stop, which was keeping a door open, the door slammed shut with such force that it severed the top of her finger. Sadly it was not possible to reattach the removed tip of the finger and Aneta – who was seven months pregnant at the time of the incident in April 2011 – will be left with a permanent disfigurement. Having spoken to a solicitor regarding the incident, Aneta made a claim for hotel employee door injury against Gatehalf Limited (trading as Kilkenny Rivercourt Hotel) alleging that, as her employers, the company had neglected to provide her with a safe workplace environment or safe system of work and had exposed her to the possibility of injury. It was claimed in the hotel worker finger injury claim that Aneta had never been guided or trained properly on the safe removal of door stops and that – as she was seven months pregnant – she should have had the assistance of a colleague for the task in question. The Kilkenny Rivercourt Hotel did not accept liability for Aneta’s injury – alleging that she had contributed in whole or in part to her injury by putting her hand in an unsafe location while removing the door-stopper and displayed a lack of regard for her own safety on this occasion based on her previous experience of carrying out the same task. However, Mr Justice Iarfhlaith Ó Neill ruled in Aneta´s favour – stating that she had “sustained a most unfortunate injury” due to the negligence of her employers – and awarded her €50,000 in settlement in her hotel employee door injury claim.

The recall of the Tassimo coffee making machine in North America is anticipated to lead to a significant rise in compensation for coffee machine burns claims. The recall was initiated by the manufacturer – BSH Home Appliances Corporation of Irvine, California – after the American Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated more than 160 claims of coffee machine burns that had been reported to them. It was discovered that the Tassimo coffee machine had a design fault which led to a risk of the T-discs – the small plastic coffee containers which were placed into the machines – showering bystanders with scalding water and hot coffee granules when they exploded. Among the worst claims for injuries were thirty-seven confirmed cases where the victim had suffered second-degree burns from the Tassimo coffee making machine, including a two-year-old girl from Canada who required hospitalisation after receiving severe burns to her face and neck. Despite claims for coffee machine burn compensation being a product liability issue, applications for assessment to the Injuries Board in this instance are likely to be declined, as the liability is held by an overseas company. Therefore those wishing to claim compensation for coffee machine burns should speak with a personal injury solicitor at the earliest opportunity.

A twelve year old girl, who tripped and fell into a hole dug by a construction company, has had a child scarring injury compensation settlement of 20,000 Euros approved in Dublin´s Circuit Civil Court. Kodie Geoghegan Dowdall was just seven years of age when, on the way to visit her aunt in Ballymun, Dublin in December 2006, she tripped and fell into a hole dug by SIAC Construction of Clondalkin, Dublin. Her accident left her with a scar injury which has since failed to heal. Making a pedestrian accident claim through her mother, Kodie claimed that her accident and injury was attributable to the negligence of SIAC construction – a claim which the company denied. However, Mr Justice Matthew Deery heard at the Circuit Civil Court that SIAC Construction were willing to offer 20,000 Euros on child scarring injury compensation without admission of liability. After hearing evidence that 20,000 Euros was sufficient to treat the scar with excision and resuturing when Kodie reaches the age of eighteen, Mr Justice Matthew Deery approved the settlement of child scarring injury compensation.

A school girl, who cut her foot on a broken plastic drain in the showers of a public swimming pool, has had the settlement of her swimming pool foot injury claim approved in the Circuit Civil Court. Hollie McNevin from Walkinstown Park, Dublin, was just nine years of age when the accident happened in the showers of the Templeogue College Pool, Templeville Road, Dublin. Hollie slipped in the showers, cutting her foot on the drain and had to have eight stitches in the wound. Hollie´s parents made a swimming pool foot injury claim for compensation on Hollie´s behalf and in the Circuit Civil Court Judge Joseph Matthews heard that, due to her injury, Hollie now had a scar on her foot which was likely to be permanent. The judge also heard that liability had been accepted and an offer of 25,000 Euros in swimming pool foot injury compensation had been made to Hollie – which the family was prepared to accept. The judge subsequently approved the compensation settlement.