Three children from the same family who sued claiming there was a failure to adequately inform their mother of the risks associated with an epilepsy drug in pregnancy have settled High Court actions.
The settlements provide them with interim payouts of €3.6 million to cover them for the next eight years.
In the proceedings, it was claimed there was a failure to investigate the risks associated with prescribing the epilepsy medicine sodium valproate to their mother during pregnancy.
The settlement against the Health Service Executive, which was reached after mediation in each case, is without an admission of liability.
The children cannot be identified by order of the court.
The family’s senior counsel, Aongus O’Brolchain, told the court the children were diagnosed with fetal valproate spectrum disorder, which is associated with the use of the drug in pregnant women. The children were later diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.
He said the children’s mother, in her late teens, had seizures and developed juvenile absence epilepsy. She was prescribed sodium valproate, also known as Epilim, which is an anticonvulsant medication.
Counsel said the woman was advised there was a 3 per cent risk in pregnancy of taking the medication, but folic acid would neutralise the risk.
Counsel said the doctor involved in the woman’s care of her epilepsy would say it was his practice to explain the risks of taking sodium valproate in pregnancy, but the woman alleges that was not correct.
The woman’s children were born in 2011, 2013 and 2015.
The cases alleged the mother would have opted for alternative epilepsy treatment if advised of the alleged risks.
It was claimed that there was a failure to have due regard to the significant evidence at the time of the mother’s pregnancies that exposure to sodium valproate in utero increased the risk of significant congenital malformations, developmental delay and autism.
All of the claims were denied.
Judge Leonie Reynolds approved three separate interim settlements for the next eight years. She said it was a “very good outcome for the children”.
The case will come back before the court in eight years, when the children’s future care needs will be assessed.