Cancer Screening Negligence in Ireland: When Organised Screening Fails
In short: Cancer screening negligence is a claim arising when one of Ireland's three organised national screening programmes, BreastCheck, CervicalCheck or BowelScreen, fails a patient who showed no symptoms. It is a type of personal injury claim, but it is legally distinct from a doctor missing symptoms in a person who came in unwell.
The Health Service Executive owes a non-delegable duty to people in these programmes. The screener must reach the standard the Supreme Court described in Morrissey v HSE. Since 26 September 2024, the Patient Safety Act 2023 gives screening patients a statutory right to request a review. Most medical negligence claims bypass the Injuries Resolution Board and proceed through the High Court Clinical Negligence List, within two years less one day of your date of knowledge.
This page explains the distinct legal framework that applies when negligence happens inside Ireland's three organised national cancer screening programmes. It is different from our pages on symptomatic cancer diagnosis failures and from our detailed pages on individual cancer types. If your concern is cervical screening specifically, see our dedicated page on cervical screening negligence claims. If a GP or hospital missed symptoms you actually reported, the better starting point is our hub on cancer misdiagnosis claims in Ireland.
What's new in 2026
Mandatory open disclosure is in force under the Patient Safety Act 2023, and the CervicalCheck Tribunal was dissolved on 30 January 2026. All screening claims now run through the High Court Clinical Negligence List.
Who this affects
People who took part in BreastCheck, CervicalCheck or BowelScreen and were later diagnosed with cancer, and families acting after a death. Whether a claim exists depends on the legal framework set out below.
Quick answers
Is screening negligence different from a missed diagnosis?
Yes. It concerns routine testing of people with no symptoms and is judged under a distinct legal framework for population screening.
Is the HSE liable if a private lab read the test?
Yes. The Supreme Court held the HSE owes a non-delegable duty and is primarily liable even when testing is outsourced.
Can I request a review of my screening?
Yes. Since 26 September 2024, Part 5 of the Patient Safety Act 2023 gives screening patients a statutory right to request one.
How long do I have to claim?
Generally two years less one day from your date of knowledge, which is often the date an audit or review is disclosed to you.
Contents
How is cancer screening negligence different from a missed symptomatic diagnosis?
Screening negligence concerns a failure during routine testing of people with no symptoms, while a symptomatic missed diagnosis concerns a doctor failing to investigate symptoms a patient actually reported. That difference is not cosmetic. It changes who is responsible, what standard the law applies, and what evidence proves the claim.
Organised screening invites healthy people in at fixed intervals to catch disease early. The legal questions therefore turn on how the programme read a test, not on whether a clinician acted on a complaint.
This distinction matters because Irish competitors routinely blur the two, treating a missed screen as if it were the same as a GP ignoring a lump. The law treats them differently. A symptomatic claim is judged purely on the Dunne standard of care.
A screening claim adds, on top of that test, the additional architecture the courts and the Oireachtas have built specifically for population screening. That architecture is a non-delegable duty owed by the State, a screener standard articulated in Morrissey, and statutory review rights under the Patient Safety Act 2023. Understanding which framework applies is the first step in understanding whether you can pursue compensation for the injury in Ireland.
Because this page is the programme-wide hub, it stays on that shared legal framework rather than the symptoms of any one cancer. Where a specific pathway matters, such as a misread mammogram or a missed colonoscopy finding, we link to the dedicated page rather than repeat it here.
Which national screening programmes exist, and where can negligence occur?
Ireland runs three organised cancer screening programmes through the HSE National Screening Service, and negligence can arise at a different point in each. Each programme screens a defined age group on a fixed cycle, and each has its own failure points, from a misread image to a delayed follow-up test. The table below sets out the current position and where claims typically arise.
| Programme | What it screens and who is eligible | Where negligence typically arises |
|---|---|---|
| BreastCheck | Free mammogram every two years for women aged 50 to 69. Results issue within about three weeks. [1] | A radiologist reading a screening mammogram as normal when suspicious features were present, or a failure to recall a woman for assessment when the guidelines required it. |
| CervicalCheck | HPV-primary screening for people with a cervix aged 25 to 65. Results issue within about four to six weeks. [2] | A laboratory misreading a sample as clear, or a failure to act on an abnormal result. This is the area the Morrissey case addressed. |
| BowelScreen | Home FIT test every two years. The eligible range is being widened and now covers ages 57 to 71, moving toward 55 to 74. [3] | A failure at the follow-up colonoscopy stage after blood is found, rather than at the home-test stage. Institutional delay in acting on concerns about a clinician has featured in past cases. |
BreastCheck: women aged 50 to 69, mammogram every two years, results within about three weeks.
CervicalCheck: people with a cervix aged 25 to 65, HPV-primary test, results within about four to six weeks.
BowelScreen: home FIT test every two years, eligible range now 57 to 71 and widening toward 55 to 74.
Where negligence typically arises in each screening pathway
For BreastCheck, the pathway runs invitation, mammogram, then radiologist read, where a normal report on a suspicious image or a missed recall is the failure point, then result. For CervicalCheck, the pathway runs sample taken, then laboratory cytology or HPV reading, where a misread sample or a failure to act on an abnormal result is the failure point, then result and recall. For BowelScreen, the pathway runs home FIT test, then colonoscopy, where an incomplete examination or a missed adenoma is the failure point, then result.
Highlighted box marks where a negligence claim typically arises in each programme.
One boundary is worth stating plainly. A PSA blood test for prostate cancer is not part of an organised national screening programme in Ireland. A PSA complaint is therefore handled on the ordinary symptomatic pathway, not under the screening framework on this page. The same is true of a symptomatic breast clinic, which is separate from BreastCheck.
A worked example: the Wexford General BowelScreen review. The colonoscopy review at Wexford General Hospital shows how a bowel screening failure can be institutional rather than a single missed reading. A staff member raised concerns about one colonoscopist five times over nine months from early 2013, but the doctor continued screening work until late 2014. [14]
The review was triggered when two patients who had screening colonoscopies in 2013 were later found to have interval cancers. BowelScreen recalled 615 patients, 401 had a repeat colonoscopy, and 13 probable missed cancers were identified. [15] An external review found that there had been missed early opportunities to act. For a claim, this pattern matters because the breach can lie in the system that failed to respond to warnings, not only in the procedure itself.
The Wexford failure also shows why measurable colonoscopy standards matter in a claim. The HSE Standards for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Screening set benchmarks a screening colonoscopy must meet. The caecal intubation rate measures the share of procedures that reach the far end of the colon. Its minimum standard is 90 percent, with an achievable target of 95 percent. [16]
The adenoma detection rate measures how often pre-cancerous growths are found and removed. Its Irish minimum standard is 45 percent, which is higher than the figure used in some other countries. The standards also require photographic evidence that the examination was complete. Where a colonoscopy falls short of these benchmarks, that shortfall can be evidence of substandard screening in a claim.
Is the HSE liable when screening labs are outsourced?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in Morrissey v HSE that the HSE owes a non-delegable duty to people in the CervicalCheck programme. It remains primarily liable even when an outside laboratory carries out the testing. In Morrissey the HSE had contracted the reading of smear samples to private laboratories, including firms based in the United States. The Court decided that the HSE could not escape responsibility by pointing to those contractors. [4]
The Court drew a careful line. It overturned the trial judge's finding that the HSE was vicariously liable for the laboratories, because those laboratories were independent contractors. Instead it held the HSE primarily liable on the basis of a non-delegable duty arising from the way it had adopted and promoted CervicalCheck. [4]
For a patient, the practical effect is reassuring. You do not have to pursue a foreign laboratory through a foreign court. You bring your claim against the HSE in the Irish High Court. The same reasoning is why a misread sample or image handled by a third party does not break the chain of responsibility back to the State.
What standard must a screener meet? Cytology versus radiology
The standard depends on the type of test. For cervical cytology, the Supreme Court in Morrissey set a demanding test. A screener should report a sample as clear only where they have no doubt it is adequate and free of suspicious material. For screening mammography, the ordinary Dunne standard of approach applies.
Getting this distinction right is what separates an accurate page from a misleading one, and most competitor pages collapse the two.
In Morrissey the High Court had used the phrase "absolute confidence" to describe what a cervical screener must have. The Supreme Court accepted the substance but noted the phrase "may have created more confusion than clarity." It restated the test as one of no doubt. A screener should not give a clear result unless they have no doubt the sample is adequate and contains nothing suspicious. [5]
The Court was clear this standard came from the evidence of the profession itself, judged under the Dunne principles, rather than being imposed by the court. It also separated the "standard of approach", meaning what a competent screener actually does, from the "standard of care", meaning the legal duty the court decides. [6]
The radiology position is different, and the High Court said so directly in Freeney v HSE. Ms Justice Hyland held that the Morrissey no-doubt test does not lay down an immutable rule for every screening case. It described the standard of approach on the particular facts of Morrissey, which concerned the adequacy of a cytology sample. [7]
For a mammogram, the question is whether the radiologists fell below the standard of approach that a competent radiologist would apply, which is the ordinary Dunne test. This brings in the concept that defeats many breast and bowel claims, explained next.
The "true interval cancer" defence. Screening is not the same as diagnosis. A cancer can develop in the gap between two routine screens and be genuinely invisible on the earlier test. The HSE treats interval cancers as an inevitable feature of any screening programme, and around 340 interval breast cancers are identified in Ireland each year. [13]
Independent reviews have found that Ireland's screening programmes operate to international standards, which means a poor outcome on its own does not show negligence. [18]
In Freeney v HSE the High Court dismissed a BreastCheck claim. The judge found the patient's cancer was a true interval cancer that showed normal or benign features on the June 2015 mammogram, so reporting it as normal was not negligent. [7] To overcome this defence, a claimant needs independent expert evidence about the original test. That evidence must show specific suspicious features, such as a subtle density or architectural distortion, were actually present and were negligently read as normal.
Morrissey v HSE [2020] IESC 6 (Supreme Court)
Holding: The HSE owes a non-delegable duty to people in the CervicalCheck programme and is primarily liable, even for outsourced laboratories. A cervical screener must not report a sample as clear unless they have no doubt it is adequate and free of suspicious material. The Dunne principles remain the test.
Why it matters: It is the foundational authority for organised-screening claims and the reason a patient sues the HSE rather than a foreign laboratory. Source: courts.ie.
Freeney v HSE (High Court, Ms Justice Hyland, 29 May 2020)
Holding: A BreastCheck claim was dismissed because the cancer was a true interval cancer that showed normal or benign features on the earlier mammogram. The court held the Morrissey no-doubt standard does not lay down a single rule for all screening, and a mammogram is judged on the ordinary Dunne standard of approach.
Why it matters: It sets the evidential bar for breast and bowel claims and confirms that a later diagnosis does not, by itself, prove an earlier screen was negligent. Source: courts.ie.
Can I request a review of my screening under the Patient Safety Act 2023?
Yes. The Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 commenced on 26 September 2024. A person who develops cancer after taking part in BreastCheck, CervicalCheck or BowelScreen now has a statutory right to request a review of their screening. This right is in force, not pending. The Act introduced mandatory open disclosure across Irish healthcare for the first time, and a dedicated Part 5 deals specifically with cancer screening reviews. [8]
Under Part 5 the screening service must tell patients of this right. It must carry out the review when it is requested, and disclose the outcome of a completed review at an open disclosure meeting. [9] This matters for two reasons.
First, a disclosure showing an earlier sample or image was misread is significant for timing. The moment you receive it is often the moment your date of knowledge begins for the time limit, which we explain below.
Second, the Act protects honesty without removing your right to claim. Under section 10, an apology or information given at a disclosure meeting is not an admission of legal liability. It cannot be used as evidence of fault in a negligence action. [10] An open disclosure is therefore the start of an inquiry, not a substitute for proving a claim in court.
How do you prove breach and causation in a screening claim?
You must prove two things: that the screening fell below the legal standard, and that the failure caused you a distinct harm, usually by allowing the cancer to progress. Both require independent expert evidence, and the two are assessed separately. Establishing that a sample or image was misread is only the first step.
Two separate hurdles in a screening-negligence claim
A screening-negligence claim has two hurdles that are assessed separately. The first is breach, meaning the screening fell below the legal standard, tested by the Dunne principles using the grading for the test, such as BI-RADS for a mammogram, cytology grade for a smear, or the caecal intubation and adenoma detection rates for a colonoscopy. The second is causation, meaning the failure caused a distinct harm, usually by allowing the cancer to advance to a higher stage and require more treatment. Both must be proven for a claim to succeed.
Breach
The screening fell below the legal standard, tested by the Dunne principles. The expert uses the grading for the test: BI-RADS for a mammogram, cytology grade for a smear, or the colonoscopy quality metrics.
(both needed)
Causation
The failure caused a distinct harm. Usually the delay let the cancer advance to a higher stage, so more radical surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy was needed that earlier detection might have avoided.
Each screen has an objective grading system that an expert uses to test whether the reading was negligent. For a mammogram, radiologists score images on the BI-RADS scale from 0 to 5. The breach pattern is an image scored as 1 or 2, meaning negative or benign. A retrospective expert review may say it should have been a 4 or 5, meaning suspicious or highly suggestive. [17]
For a cervical smear, the question is whether the cytology was graded correctly or whether a slide later reclassified on review was negligently read as normal at the time. For a colonoscopy, the benchmarks are the caecal intubation and adenoma detection rates set out earlier. In each case the expert compares the original reading against what the test material actually showed.
One evidential point shapes every screening claim. A later cancer diagnosis does not by itself prove the earlier screen was negligent. The central dispute is usually whether suspicious features were genuinely present at the time or are only visible with hindsight.
The Supreme Court in Morrissey noted the difficulty of avoiding hindsight bias when a slide is reviewed knowing the outcome. The test is what a competent screener should have seen on the day, not what is obvious in retrospect.
Breach is measured by the Dunne principles, reaffirmed in Morrissey, applied through the screener standard appropriate to the test. [4] Causation then asks a different question: what difference did the delay make. The negligence rarely causes the cancer itself. Instead it allows existing disease to advance, so that a patient needs more radical surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy that earlier detection might have avoided.
Proving this turns on oncology evidence about staging and how the tumour would have behaved had it been caught at the earlier screen. Where a delay reduced a patient's prospect of a cure rather than removing it entirely, the claim enters the unsettled area of loss of chance. We cover this on our dedicated page on loss of chance in cancer claims.
Two further points shape the value of a claim. A defendant may argue contributory negligence under the Civil Liability Act 1961. An example is a patient who delayed seeing a doctor after noticing new symptoms, which can reduce an award by the share of harm attributed to the patient.
The technical mechanics of a misread sample or image also overlap with two related pages. Our guidance on pathology and laboratory errors and radiology misdiagnosis sets out how those specific failures are proven. For the underlying test for fault, see our guide to how breach of duty is proven.
A first practical step is to gather the screening records an expert will need. Which records matter depends on the programme.
- BreastCheck
- The original screening mammogram images and the radiology report, including the BI-RADS score, along with any recall correspondence.
- CervicalCheck
- The cytology or HPV result, the smear slides where available, and any audit or review correspondence about an earlier sample.
- BowelScreen
- The FIT result, the colonoscopy report with its completion photographs and withdrawal time, and any histology on tissue removed.
- All programmes
- Every letter from the screening service, your GP and hospital records, and the outcome of any Part 5 screening review.
What can a claim include, and what are the time limits and court route?
A successful screening-negligence claim can include general damages for the harm and uncapped special damages for financial losses. It proceeds through the High Court Clinical Negligence List rather than the Injuries Resolution Board. General damages for pain and suffering are assessed by reference to the Judicial Council's Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021, and awards vary case by case. [11]
Special damages, such as lost earnings, care costs and future medical expenses, are not capped and are calculated on your individual circumstances. We keep the detail of valuation on our page on cancer misdiagnosis compensation so this hub does not duplicate it.
The time limit is strict. A medical negligence claim must generally be brought within two years less one day of your date of knowledge, under section 7 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, with the date-of-knowledge test set out in the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991. The date of knowledge is when you knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that your injury was significant and was connected to the screening.
In screening cases that is frequently the date an audit or Part 5 review is disclosed to you, rather than the date of the original screen. Waiting for an expert report to confirm negligence does not extend this clock. Because timing in screening cases can be complex, see our detailed guide to the date of knowledge and time limits.
One procedural point corrects a common error. Unlike a standard personal injury claim, which is assessed by the Injuries Resolution Board, most medical negligence claims are exempt from that process and go straight to the High Court.
Cervical screening claims were once able to go to a dedicated CervicalCheck Tribunal, but that route is now closed. The Tribunal was formally dissolved on 30 January 2026 by S.I. No. 19 of 2026, having made no awards. [12] All screening-negligence claims now proceed through the ordinary High Court Clinical Negligence List.
How we can help
If you took part in BreastCheck, CervicalCheck or BowelScreen and were later diagnosed with cancer, you may be wondering whether the screening fell short. As personal injury solicitors in Dublin acting for clients across Ireland, we can review what happened. We can explain whether the legal framework on this page applies to your situation, and advise on your options without obligation. Understanding where you stand is part of deciding whether to pursue a personal injury claim for the harm.
Gary Matthews Solicitors, 3rd Floor, Ormond Building, 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin D07. Phone 01 9036408 for a no obligation consultation.
Frequently asked questions
Can I claim if I was diagnosed with cancer after a clear screening result?
Possibly, but a later diagnosis does not by itself prove negligence. You would need independent expert evidence that the screening fell below the legal standard. For example, that suspicious features were present on a mammogram, or that a sample was misread, and that the resulting delay caused you a distinct harm. A cancer that developed genuinely between screens, with nothing detectable on the earlier test, is a true interval cancer and is not negligent.
How is organised screening negligence different from a GP missing symptoms?
Screening negligence concerns routine testing of people with no symptoms, judged under a specific legal framework for population screening. A GP missing symptoms concerns the failure to investigate a complaint a patient actually made, judged on the ordinary standard of care. The responsible party, the standard applied, and the evidence required all differ. This page covers the screening framework, while symptomatic claims start at our cancer misdiagnosis hub.
Does the HSE's non-delegable duty apply to BreastCheck and BowelScreen?
The non-delegable duty was established in Morrissey v HSE in the context of CervicalCheck, where the HSE had outsourced testing. The reasoning is that the HSE cannot escape responsibility by contracting out work in a programme it adopted and promoted. That reasoning is generally understood to extend across the organised programmes. Whether it applies on the facts of a given BreastCheck or BowelScreen claim is assessed case by case.
What is a "true interval cancer" in a BreastCheck or BowelScreen claim?
An interval cancer is one diagnosed between two routine screening appointments. A true interval cancer is one that showed normal or benign features on the previous screen, meaning the test was correctly read at the time. In Freeney v HSE the High Court dismissed a BreastCheck claim on this basis. To claim, you must show specific suspicious features were actually present on the earlier test and were negligently read as normal.
Does the Morrissey "no doubt" standard apply to mammograms?
Not directly. In Freeney v HSE the High Court held that the Morrissey no-doubt standard described the approach on the facts of that cytology case. It does not lay down a single rule for all screening. A screening mammogram is judged on the ordinary Dunne standard of approach, asking whether the radiologists fell below the standard a competent radiologist would apply.
Can I request a review of my screening under the Patient Safety Act 2023?
Yes. The Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 has applied since 26 September 2024. Under Part 5, a person who develops cancer after taking part in a national screening programme has the right to request a review of their screening. The service must carry out the review and disclose the outcome at an open disclosure meeting. An apology given at that meeting is not an admission of legal liability.
Is the CervicalCheck Tribunal still accepting claims?
No. The CervicalCheck Tribunal was formally dissolved on 30 January 2026 by Statutory Instrument No. 19 of 2026. It received a small number of claims and made no awards. All cervical screening claims, and other screening-negligence claims, now proceed through the ordinary High Court Clinical Negligence List.
How long do I have to bring a screening-negligence claim?
Generally two years less one day from your date of knowledge, under section 7 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (with the date-of-knowledge test in the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 1991). In screening cases the date of knowledge is often when an audit or Part 5 review discloses that an earlier sample or image was misread. That can be later than the date of the original screen. Different time limits can apply for children and in fatal cases, so early advice is important.
Do screening-negligence claims go through the Injuries Resolution Board?
No. Most medical negligence claims, including screening claims, are exempt from the Injuries Resolution Board assessment process. They proceed directly to the High Court, where they are managed in the Clinical Negligence List. This differs from a standard personal injury claim, which is assessed by the Board.
What do I need to prove a screening-negligence claim?
You need independent expert evidence on two points. The first is that the screening fell below the legal standard for the test. The second is that the failure caused you a distinct harm, usually by letting the cancer progress to a stage needing more aggressive treatment. Your medical records, the screening result, and any audit or Part 5 review disclosure are the starting documents.
Sources
- HSE / Citizens Information, BreastCheck breast screening (eligibility 50 to 69, results within three weeks). citizensinformation.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- HSE National Screening Service, CervicalCheck HPV screening (ages 25 to 65). healthservice.hse.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- HSE National Screening Service, Explained: BowelScreen age range expansion (ages 57 to 71 from 1 April 2026, widening toward 55 to 74). healthservice.hse.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- Morrissey & anor v Health Service Executive & ors [2020] IESC 6 (Supreme Court, 19 March 2020), non-delegable duty and reaffirmation of the Dunne principles. bailii.org. Accessed June 2026.
- RTÉ News, report of the Supreme Court judgment in Morrissey (screener "no doubt" standard), 19 March 2020. rte.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- Fieldfisher, analysis of Morrissey v HSE (standard of approach versus standard of care). fieldfisher.com. Accessed June 2026.
- Freeney v Health Service Executive (High Court, Ms Justice Hyland, 29 May 2020), true interval cancer, with the Morrissey standard held not to be an immutable rule for all screening. Reported at irishtimes.com. Accessed June 2026.
- Government of Ireland, commencement of the Patient Safety (Notifiable Incidents and Open Disclosure) Act 2023 on 26 September 2024, including Part 5 screening reviews. gov.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- HSE National Screening Service, Understanding Part 5 of the Patient Safety Act 2023. healthservice.hse.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- Hayes Solicitors, the Patient Safety Act 2023 (section 10, apology not an admission of liability). hayes-solicitors.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- Judicial Council, Personal Injuries Guidelines 2021. judicialcouncil.ie (PDF). Accessed June 2026.
- CervicalCheck Tribunal (Dissolution) Order 2026, S.I. No. 19 of 2026 (dissolution 30 January 2026). irishstatutebook.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- RTÉ News, HSE reports on interval cancers in BreastCheck, CervicalCheck and BowelScreen (interval cancers an inevitable feature of screening, around 340 interval breast cancers a year), 21 October 2020. rte.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- The Irish Times, external review of the Wexford General Hospital colonoscopy incident (concerns raised five times over nine months from 2013, missed early opportunities to act), 24 January 2018. irishtimes.com. Accessed June 2026.
- BowelScreen / HSE, review of colonoscopies at Wexford General Hospital (recall figures and interval-cancer trigger). bowelscreen.ie. The recall outcome of 401 repeat colonoscopies and 13 probable missed cancers was reported by rte.ie, 18 January 2017. Accessed June 2026.
- Health Service Executive, Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Screening (Second Edition), BowelScreen National Screening Service (caecal intubation rate minimum 90 percent and achievable 95 percent, adenoma detection rate minimum 45 percent, photographic evidence of completion required). assets.hse.ie. Accessed June 2026.
- BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) is the American College of Radiology standard for grading mammographic findings on a 0 to 5 scale, used in retrospective expert review of screening mammograms. acr.org. Accessed June 2026.
- Independent expert review of CervicalCheck (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Expert Panel, 2019) found the programme operated at international standards with a slide-discordance rate on retrospective review similar to other organised programmes, as discussed in peer-reviewed analysis. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Accessed June 2026.
Gary Matthews Solicitors
Medical negligence solicitors, Dublin
We help people every day of the week (weekends and bank holidays included) that have either been injured or harmed as a result of an accident or have suffered from negligence or malpractice.
Contact us at our Dublin office to get started with your claim today
