The High Court clarified that a doctor examining a defendant in a Cork road-injury case could ask relevant medical questions about the defendant’s pleaded automatism defence, but could not question him about the particular facts of the collision. The court also said the examination was not to involve an invasive procedure.
The judgment concerns a claim brought by Michael O’Donovan over a collision on 12 January 2010 on a public road near Ballinhassig, County Cork. The judgment says he suffered severe personal injuries in an accident involving the first and third defendants. The claim alleges negligence and breach of duty; the court made no finding on liability in this ruling.
The first and second defendants’ amended defence pleaded that the first defendant’s actions were beyond his control because of automatism or an inevitable accident. The particulars said he had suffered an unheralded major hypoglycaemic episode against a background of hypothyroidism.
In January 2013, the court ordered the first defendant to attend a medical examination by a general practitioner nominated by the plaintiff, with a further examination by a consultant if that doctor advised it. Both examinations were to take place in the presence of the defendant’s relevant medical practitioner.
The plaintiff later sought to strike out paragraph 3 of the defence, alleging non-compliance with that order. An affidavit from the plaintiff’s solicitor said the examination took place in April 2013, but that the defendant’s attending doctor instructed him not to answer some questions. The plaintiff’s medical adviser said he had been prevented from asking about matters including food intake, blood-sugar checks and previous hypoglycaemic episodes. These were allegations and submissions before the court, not findings in this judgment.
At the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel said he was seeking clarification that the defendant had to answer questions posed during the examination. He said the plaintiff would pursue the request to strike out the automatism plea if the clarified order was not followed. The defendant’s counsel argued that questioning could turn the examination into a form of interrogatories without ordinary procedural protections.
Having reviewed the earlier order and an audio recording of the prior hearing, Mr Justice Gilligan said the plaintiff’s medical adviser could ask medical questions relevant to the automatism plea and its particulars. He ruled that questions about the specific factual circumstances of the accident were outside the examination’s scope. The judgment records a clarification of the earlier order; it does not record a decision on the request to strike out the defence. The judge said he would hear submissions on the form of the order to be drawn up.