The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A TEENAGE national rugby player allegedly had part of his leg amputated at Princess Margaret Hospital without his mother being consulted – and the Public Hospitals Authority will have to pay damages after leaving it too long to challenge allegations of negligence.

The Supreme Court has left standing a default judgment against the PHA, finding the authority failed for years to properly respond to claims that negligent treatment led to devastating complications for Miguel Russell.

The ruling clears the way for a damages hearing that will determine compensation for injuries that medical records describe as severe, including infections, tissue damage and the eventual removal of part of his leg.

Assistant Registrar Akeira D Martin ruled that the PHA did not show a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and failed to provide a credible explanation for its prolonged inaction.

The decision effectively settles liability unless overturned on appeal.

Mr Russell was a minor when he was injured during a rugby match while representing The Bahamas. He was treated at PMH for a dislocated knee, but later developed serious complications after being placed on dialysis.

His condition worsened significantly.

According to the claim outlined in the ruling, he alleged a portion of his leg was removed at PMH without consultation with his mother. As his condition deteriorated, his family sought treatment in Cuba, where doctors documented extensive infections, necrosis and severe wounds.

The litigation has been marked by years of delay.

Court records show the writ of summons was filed in December 2017 and amended in February 2018. The PHA entered an appearance in April 2018 but took no substantive steps to defend the claim for years.

Mr Russell’s statement of claim was not filed until September 2024 and was served days later. The PHA acknowledged service the following month but still did not file a defence.

By January 2025, Mr Russell moved for default judgment. The court granted it on March 19 2025, after a hearing at which the PHA attended but did not object or formally seek an extension of time.

Only after judgment was entered did the authority attempt to revive its defence.

In its application to set aside the judgment, the PHA argued that it had a viable defence and blamed its delay on logistical challenges in obtaining medical records, particularly from Cuba.

It also maintained that Mr Russell’s condition resulted from the severity of his initial injury rather than negligence and said he received appropriate care.

Mr Russell opposed the application, arguing that the PHA had access to his records and had simply failed to act despite numerous opportunities. He said the authority had no real defence and relied on delay.

The court agreed. Applying the Civil Procedure Rules, the assistant registrar considered whether the PHA had acted promptly, provided a good explanation for its default and demonstrated a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

It failed to satisfy those requirements.

The ruling notes that the PHA did not act with urgency in obtaining medical records and, in some cases, only sought key documents years after entering the proceedings. Some records, the court found, were already available.

The explanation for delay was not accepted.

The court also found that the PHA’s proposed defence did not properly address the core allegations in the claim.

Those allegations include that Mr Russell developed bedsores while under care, that part of his leg was removed without proper consultation, and that he was not given adequate medical advice.

The draft defence amounted largely to general denials and did not provide a substantive response to those claims, the court found.

By contrast, the court noted that Mr Russell’s account was supported by medical evidence from Cuba, which documented severe infections, tissue damage and complications consistent with his claims.

The assistant registrar made clear that the court was not determining negligence at this stage, but found that the PHA had not shown a defence strong enough to justify reopening the case.

The court also refused to extend time for the PHA to file a defence, dismissing the application in its entirety.

Costs were awarded to Mr Russell.

The case will now proceed to a directions hearing for the assessment of damages, where the court will determine the compensation owed for the injuries and their impact.

That phase is expected to involve expert medical evidence and detailed examination of the treatment Mr Russell received and the progression of his condition.