A woman mistakenly transfused with blood intended for another patient with the same first and last names at University Hospital of the West Indies (UHWI) in March 2006 has won nearly twice the $4 million in general damages awarded by the Supreme Court after successfully challenging the decision in the Appeal Court.

According to the Appeal Court, instead of the $4 million awarded by the Supreme Court judge, the woman should have been awarded the sum of $7,600,000 for “pain and suffering and loss of amenities”. The judges of the appeal, after hearing arguments from attorney Denise SeniorSmith, who represented the woman, said: “The complaint that the measure of damages was either inordinately low or grossly inadequate is irresistible.”

“In short, in the judgment of this court, the award made to the appellant by the learned judge was an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the appellant was entitled,” the Appeal Court stated.

According to the facts contained in the record of the court, the woman was admitted to UHWI on March 4, 2006 as an emergency admission with severe thrombocytopaenia (a medical condition defined by an abnormally low blood platelet count). She was subsequently diagnosed with immune thrombocytopaenia (ITP) — a bleeding disorder caused by low blood platelets — and was required to undergo a blood transfusion as part of UHWI’s management of the condition.

That transfusion was conducted the following day (March 5, 2006) by the UHWI’s nursing staff. According to the evidence before the court, the transfusion “resulted in a mismatch with the appellant’s blood group as she was given blood intended for another patient with the identical first and last names”.

According to the evidence, the night after being transfused with the incorrect blood group, the woman experienced what she described as “intolerable pain throughout her body, high temperature and depersonalisation (a psychiatric state where the patient does not believe he/she is real). That pain and suffering, the court was told, “continued for several days, accompanied by sleepless nights”.

Two days after the transfusion, the haematology service became aware of the nursing staff’s error. The woman was informed of the transfusion blunder during a meeting with the medical team the next day (March 8).

She was discharged as an inpatient on April 10, 2006, but remained an outpatient of the hospital and filed a claim form and particulars of claim in August 2011 seeking damages against the hospital for the negligent transfusion of the incorrect blood group by its nursing staff.

In the claim she alleged that she suffered “excruciating pain, reduction of her platelet count, and trauma, amongst other injuries”, because of that negligence.

In December 2016 the Supreme Court made an award of $3,500,000 for psychological injury along with an additional sum of $500,000 to account for the further pain and suffering that the woman experienced as a consequence of the transfusion, making the total award for general damages $4,000,000.

However, the woman disputed that decision in January 2017 appeal, contending, among other things, that the judge had erred in determining the amount of the award which was “inordinately low/or grossly inadequate” and far less than the sums submitted by her attorney.

The Appeal Court, in reviewing the case, said the overarching issue was whether the sum awarded was an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which she was entitled as a result of the learned judge’s failure to apply comparable cases, or otherwise act on correct principles of law.

Following an assessment of arguments from Senior-Smith, attorneys representing the hospital, and various case law, the Appeal Court, in its ruling handed down on October 16, said: “A fair and reasonable quantum of damages for the psychological injury the appellant suffered should be $7,100,000, rounded up.”

“The appellant should have been awarded the sum of $7,600,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. That is just shy of twice the sum the learned judge awarded ($4,000,000),” the Appeal Court stated.

In reference to the $10-million in damages sought by Senior-Smith on the basis of a comparative case, the Appeal Court, however, maintained that the two matters were “distinguishable”, while adding that, “In the assessment of damages, the object is never to provide the injured party with a windfall, but with that sum of money which will restore that party to the position she would have been in had she not suffered the wrong that gave rise to the claim”.

The court apologised for the delay in delivering the judgment and said, “The appeal is allowed. The order for general damages is set aside. Substituted therefor is the following: general damages awarded to the appellant in the sum of $7,600,000 with interest at the rate of three per cent from August 31, 2011 to December 7, 2016.”

It further affirmed the original orders of the Supreme Court for special damages and for future medical expenses.