The North West Regional Health Authority (NWRHA) has been ordered to pay a little over $400,000 in compensation to a 72-year-old woman who had an adverse reaction after being given the wrong type of blood during a routine blood transfusion.
High Court judge Joan Charles ordered the compensation for Angela Badree, of Williamsville, after upholding her medical negligence lawsuit against the NWRHA on Wednesday.
According to the evidence in the case, on February 18, 2014, her physician ordered her to undergo a blood transfusion before her surgery for a coronary artery bypass graft.
While undergoing the transfusion at the Port-of-Spain General Hospital later that day, Badree began experiencing severe lower back pain, shivering, and generalised itching.
The transfusion was briefly stopped and Badree was administered medication before it resumed.
The transfusion had to be stopped once again as Badree complained about extreme chest pains and difficulty breathing.
Doctors at the hospital attempted to resume the transfusion the following day, but Badree’s symptoms persisted.
Badree’s doctor then advised her to get a blood test from a private medical facility and return with the results.
The tests revealed that she had been administered B positive blood when her blood type was A positive.
Her graft surgery had to be postponed after she was diagnosed with Acute Haemolytic Transfusion Reaction (AHTR).
In the lawsuit, Badree claimed that doctors and nurses at the public hospital, which is operated by the NWRHA, were negligent in administering the wrong type of blood and in failing to recognise the signs and symptoms of her AHTR.
In defence of the case, the NWRHA admitted that Badree was administered the wrong blood but denied that the error caused her loss, damage, pain, and suffering. It also claimed that she subsequently recovered.
It also challenged the findings of Badree’s medical expert witness Dr Ramesh Mathura, who ruled that Badree was left 90 to 95 per cent permanently partially disabled because of the error.
In her judgement, Justice Charles noted that the NWRHA’s expert witness did not testify during the trial.
“No medical evidence has been adduced by the defendant to challenge the claimant’s assertion that her physical condition has deteriorated as a result of the impugned blood transfusion,” Justice Charles said.
“The claimant on the other hand has relied upon the expert evidence of Mathura in support of her contention that she has suffered injury rendering her unable to walk unaided or to care for herself as a result of the said transfusion,” she added.
Charles did note that she was concerned that Mathura did not do a physical examination or sent her for further testing to verify her symptoms.
“However, he is an experienced haematologist and gave it as his opinion that the transfusion of the wrong blood type could cause these symptoms,” she said.
In assessing the compensation for Badree, Charles noted that she did not accept Mathura’s finding on the extent of her disability.
“I am of the view that her permanent partial disability is at 50 per cent, given the fact that she also suffers from coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus,” Charles said, as she also considered Badree’s age.
Charles noted that although Badree claimed that before the incident, she would earn $1,000 monthly by selling produce she grew, she did not provide evidence of her loss of income.
As part of her judgment, Charles also ordered that the NWRHA pay her legal costs for bringing the lawsuit.
Badree was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Che Dindial and Vishaal Siewsaran. Justin Phelps and Charles Law represented the NWRHA.
