NASSAU, BAHAMAS- The Supreme Court has refused to set aside a default judgment against the Public Hospitals Authority (PHA) in a major medical negligence case, finding that it had failed to provide a credible explanation for its delay and did not establish a viable defence with a real prospect of success.
In a ruling delivered on April 2, 2026, Assistant Registrar Akeira Martin dismissed the PHA’s application to overturn the judgment entered on March 19, 2025, after the PHA failed to file a defence in response to a claim brought by Miguel Russell.
The case stems from treatment Russell received at Princess Margaret Hospital after suffering a serious knee injury during a rugby match while he was a minor. According to the claim, his condition deteriorated significantly while under the hospital’s care. He was later admitted to intensive care, placed on dialysis, and developed severe complications including infection, swelling, and bedsores.
Court filings detail that Russell’s injuries worsened to the point where amputation was being considered. A referral letter from Dr. Duane Sands, who served as the attending surgeon, confirmed that Russell’s leg was “severely mangled” and recommended an above-knee amputation due to the risk posed by infection and vascular damage. The letter also outlined a series of complications, including vascular compromise, sepsis, and organ failure during a difficult ICU course.
Russell’s mother ultimately sought alternative medical treatment in Cuba, where further evaluations were conducted. Medical reports from Cuban specialist Dr. Joe A. Zaya Power described extensive tissue damage, infection, and multiple lesions, while noting efforts to avoid amputation despite the severity of the condition.
Russell alleges that the PHA breached its duty of care in multiple ways, including failing to properly diagnose and monitor his condition, failing to adequately treat infection, and not obtaining proper consent from his mother before undertaking significant procedures while he was a minor. He is also seeking aggravated damages, citing long-term physical and psychological harm.
The matter has a lengthy procedural history dating back to 2017, when Russell first filed his writ. Although the PHA entered an appearance in 2018, there was no significant progress until Russell filed his Statement of Claim in September 2024. The PHA acknowledged service but failed to submit a defence within the required timeframe.
Russell subsequently applied for default judgment in January 2025. While the PHA was represented at the March 2025 hearing, it had not filed evidence in opposition or made a formal application for an extension of time. The court therefore granted leave for default judgment to be entered.
The PHA moved quickly to apply to set aside that judgment, citing logistical challenges in retrieving medical records and obtaining expert reports. It also submitted a draft defence, asserting that Russell received appropriate care and that his condition was influenced by other factors, including the severity of his injury and alleged failure to follow medical advice.
However, the court rejected those arguments. In her ruling, Martin found it “unfathomable” that the PHA could not access the relevant medical records earlier, noting that the authority had been aware of the treatment timeline since at least 2018 and had ample opportunity to prepare its defence.
The court also found that the PHA’s proposed defence relied heavily on bare denials and failed to adequately set out its version of events. While the authority denied key allegations—including that any portion of Russell’s leg was removed—it did not provide sufficient detail to substantively counter the claim.
By contrast, the court noted that Russell had produced detailed medical evidence supporting his allegations, including diagnostic reports from PMH and extensive documentation from his treatment in Cuba. This evidence, the court found, strengthened his case and cast significant doubt on the PHA’s ability to successfully defend the claim.
As a result, the court concluded that the PHA failed to meet the legal threshold required to set aside a default judgment, particularly the requirement to demonstrate a real prospect of success at trial.
The application was dismissed in full, and costs were awarded to Russell.
The case will now proceed to an assessment of damages. Both parties are expected to return to court for directions on the assessment of damages at a later date.
