A woman is suing two doctors over claims that they accidentally cut her ureter during a surgery in 2006.

Nanette Snowden has launched a legal action against two doctors — Terri-Lynn Emery and Charles Dyer — for “beach of duty of care”, but counsel for both defendants sought for the matter to be struck out during a recent Supreme Court hearing.

They argued that the writs had expired before being served and the claims were “frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process”.

Ms Snowden had sought to have the Bermuda Hospitals Board joined to the action as a defendant, but that aspect of the claim was dismissed after she accepted she had no course of action against the body.

The complainant was first admitted to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital as a private patient in February of 2005 after complaining of abdominal pain. She subsequently underwent surgery to remove an abdominal wall lipoma, which was performed by Dr Emery. She was later diagnosed with dysfunctional uterine bleeding and underwent several further operations.

In October of 2006 she underwent an operation to remove an ovarian cyst, but during the operating the plaintiff’s left ureter was accidentally cut and subsequently repaired by Dr Dyer.

Following surgery, Ms Snowden suffered fever and severe abdominal pains, and was readmitted to the hospital on several occasions as a private patient under the care of Dr Dyer.

In December of 2006 she returned to the hospital for a nephrotomy tube to be inserted, but the procedure was abandoned when the patient complained of “enormous pain”.

She subsequently elected to be treated overseas and was referred to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston where she underwent further procedures until June 2007, when her kidney was removed.

Ms Snowden said she later learned that there was an actionable medical negligence case and sought legal counsel.

Since the surgery in Bermuda, she claims she has suffered ongoing medical issues, constant pain and has been unable to return to work.

A writ of summons was issued on October 5, 2012. Almost a year later, on October 4, 2013, a process server was instructed to deliver a writ on the defendants, however on that day Dr Emery was in surgery and Dr Dyer was out of the country. The defendants were served on October 8 and November 4 respectively — outside of the limitation period.

In a judgement issued on September 25, Justice Stephen Hellman wrote that claims of negligence on the part of the doctors should be struck out as the complainant’s relationship was contractual — although she had to that point failed to plead the contracts on which she relies or the terms that have been breached.

“For present purposes, I shall proceed on the assumption, which I think is implicit in the amended statement of claim, that on the plaintiff’s case both the first and second defendants owed her a contractual duty to treat her with reasonable care and skill, and that this is the duty which they have breached,” the judge wrote.

And while found that the “vast majority” of allegation should be struck out for failing to give a reasonable cause of action or for being frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process, there were a “kernel of allegations” which could not be dismissed as such — including the accusation that Dr Emery and/or Dr Dyer had cut Ms Snowden’s ureter.

On the subject of the late delivery of the writs, he argued that there was good reason for the delay in service and he was prepared to renew the writ to allow its service outside of the limitation period.

He granted Ms Snowden leave to amend her statement of claim to remove claims of negligence and amend the allegations of breach of duty.