A former patient of Belfast neurologist Michael Watt is to receive £50,000 in damages for her “appalling standard of care”, a High Court judge ruled on Thursday.
Mr Justice Colton awarded the payout to Martine Norney to cover psychiatric and medical injuries during consultation and treatment by the ex-doctor.
The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust was also held jointly liable in her negligence claim over a procedure carried out for a neurological condition.
With both defendants ordered to pay half the damages each, Mr Justice Colton stated: “It is trite to say that the conduct of (Mr Watt) was appalling. This would be clear to any lay person.”
The medic, who worked at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, was at the centre of Northern Ireland’s biggest-ever patient recall in 2018.
Thousands of people were re-examined amid concerns about the treatment they received from him.
He was struck off the medical register last year after his professional performance was found to be unacceptably low.
Ms Norney sued both the neurologist and the Trust for alleged grossly substandard medical care after she began to experience headaches, dizziness and nausea along with pins and needles in her right arm and sensitivity to light and sound.
The court heard she was initially referred to the neurology clinic at the Royal before seeking a private consultation with Mr Watt in July 2016.
He told her she had a spinal leak and that he would arrange an epidural blood patch to be carried out under the NHS rather than privately.
The procedure involves taking blood from her arm and injecting it into the back, to close the hole and “cure the headaches”.
Ms Norney was also informed that she had a condition called Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension (SIH) which required a fluid injection into her back to cure it.
She claimed there was no discussion about the risks associated with the procedure or any alternative diagnosis.
In November 2016 Ms Norney attended hospital to have the blood patch performed by the neurologist.
Mr Watt came into the cubicle in his everyday clothes, unmasked and not wearing gloves, according to her account.
She also remained in normal clothing when told to lie face down on the bed so he could carry out the injection.
At one point she felt severe pain in her right leg and asked him to stop, but he continued and said “just a bit more.”
She described the pain as excruciating and that it felt like her leg was going to burst.
When the procedure ended she was advised to stay prone for up to 10 minutes before leaving.
Ms Norney claimed that by the time she got up Mr Watt and an accompanying nurse had already gone.
She described feeling soreness in her back and leg, but said she was not provided with any help, guidance or appointment for a review.
No statement or evidence was provided by Mr Watt as part of his defence to the action.
Negligence was established against the struck-off doctor over his consultation with Ms Norney and diagnosis that she was suffering from SIH.
Dealing with the procedure carried out in November 2016, a litany of unacceptable behaviour highlighted by a consultant anaesthetist witness included:
:: Failures to obtain informed consent or carry out proper pre-procedure preparation.
:: Ms Norney remained in her outdoor clothes but should have been dressed in a hospital gown.
:: The cubicle was an inappropriate area for the performance of an invasive procedure and should have contained resuscitation equipment.
:: Mr Watt should have, at the very minimum, worn gloves, a mask and dressed in surgical scrubs due to risks of introducing infection.
:: Mr Watt persisted beyond Ms Norney’s complaints of pain and discomfort.
:: Substandard post-procedure management of a patient who should have remained recumbent for at least one or two hours but was given no information about follow-up care.
In his assessment of how the blood patch procedure was performed, the judge said there seemed little dispute that the plaintiff received an “appalling standard of care”.
He went on to find that she had established liability against both defendants on a joint basis.
Awarding Ms Norney £50,000 in damages, the judge confirmed: “The just and fair apportionment between the defendants is a 50/50 split.”