A devastating medical negligence case involving a teenage Bahamian national rugby player has taken a critical turn, with the Supreme Court of the Bahamas upholding a default judgment that finds the Public Hospitals Authority (PHA) liable for damages arising from the un-consulted partial amputation of the athlete’s leg. The ruling marks the end of years of procedural delay and clears the path for a formal hearing to determine the size of the compensation package for 19-year-old (at time of ruling) Miguel Russell, who suffered life-altering complications following routine treatment for a sports injury.
The incident dates back to when Russell, a minor representing The Bahamas in international rugby competition, sustained a dislocated knee during a match and was admitted for treatment at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH), the country’s leading public healthcare facility. After being placed on dialysis following his initial procedure, Russell’s condition rapidly deteriorated. According to the formal claim filed against the PHA, medical staff at PMH proceeded to amputate a portion of Russell’s leg without notifying or gaining consent from his mother, who was his legal guardian at the time of the procedure.
As his infection spread and wounds failed to heal, Russell’s family eventually arranged for specialized care in Cuba, where attending clinicians documented extensive tissue necrosis, widespread bacterial infection, and catastrophic open wounds that aligned with the young athlete’s allegations of improper care. What followed after the family filed suit was years of unexplained procedural inaction on the part of the PHA, which has drawn sharp criticism from the court.
Court records show the initial writ of summons was first filed in December 2017, with an amended complaint submitted just two months later in February 2018. The PHA entered a formal appearance in the case in April 2018, but took no substantive steps to mount a legal defense for more than six years. Russell’s legal team finally submitted a full statement of claim in September 2024, which was served to the PHA shortly after. While the PHA acknowledged receipt of the claim the following month, it still failed to file a formal response or defense.
By January 2025, Russell’s legal team moved for a default judgment, which was granted by the court during a March 19 2025 hearing. Notably, PHA representatives attended the hearing but made no formal objection or request for an extension of time to prepare their defense. It was only after the default judgment was entered that the PHA attempted to reverse the ruling, filing an application to set aside the judgment and revive its defense.
In its application, the PHA claimed it had a viable defense to the negligence allegations, blaming its years-long delay on logistical hurdles in obtaining Russell’s medical records from Cuban healthcare providers. The authority also argued that Russell’s severe complications stemmed from the initial severity of his rugby injury, not negligent care, and maintained that he had received appropriate, evidence-based treatment at PMH.
Russell’s legal team pushed back against the PHA’s claims, noting that the authority already had full access to all relevant domestic medical records and had repeatedly missed opportunities to move the case forward over the preceding six years. They argued the PHA had no substantive defense to the core allegations and had intentionally relied on delay to avoid liability.
In her ruling, Assistant Registrar Akeira D Martin sided entirely with Russell, applying the country’s Civil Procedure Rules to evaluate whether the PHA met the legal requirements to set aside a default judgment. To successfully reverse a default ruling, defendants must demonstrate they acted promptly after the entry of judgment, provided a credible explanation for their prolonged inaction, and prove they have a genuine prospect of successfully defending the claim at trial. The PHA failed to meet all three criteria, Martin found.
The ruling specifically notes that the PHA did not act with any urgency to request medical records, with key documentation only being requested years after the PHA first entered the case. The court also confirmed that many of the records the PHA claimed it needed were already in its possession long before the default judgment was granted. Martin further found that the PHA’s proposed defense consisted almost entirely of general denials of negligence, with no substantive response to the core claims: that Russell developed preventable bedsores during his stay at PMH, that the partial amputation was performed without required consent from his mother, and that he was never provided adequate medical guidance about his worsening condition.
By contrast, the court highlighted that Russell’s account of events was fully supported by independent medical evidence from Cuban clinicians, whose documentation of severe infection and tissue damage aligned perfectly with his allegations of improper care. Martin emphasized that the court was not making a final ruling on the underlying negligence at this procedural stage, but found that the PHA had failed to demonstrate it had a strong enough defense to justify reopening the case. The court also refused to grant the PHA an extension of time to file a defense, dismissing the authority’s application in full and ordering the PHA to pay all legal costs incurred by Russell to date.
With liability now effectively settled (barring a successful appeal by the PHA), the case will next move to a directions hearing for the formal assessment of damages, where the court will determine how much compensation the PHA must pay Russell for his life-altering injuries and ongoing harm. This phase of the proceedings is expected to include testimony from independent medical experts and a detailed review of the care Russell received at PMH and the progression of his condition following the initial injury.