The High Court has ordered James Egan to provide Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd with post-accident medical records covering five months from the date of an alleged injury at the Mart.
In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2023, Mr Justice Twomey granted the Mart’s pre-trial discovery application. The order is limited to medical records for that five-month period after 13 November 2017. The court did not decide the underlying personal-injury claim or award damages.
Egan claims that a bullock injured the shin of his left leg at the Mart on 13 November 2017. His personal injuries summons sought damages for ongoing leg pain; updated particulars later referred to ongoing lower-back pain said to result from the accident. He disclosed a history of back pain, an L4/L5 disc bulge and spinal surgery in the 1980s, as well as a prior road traffic injury claim that was compromised around 2003 or 2004.
The Mart sought records relating to treatment for back or leg symptoms from 1 January 2012. After the application was issued, Egan agreed to provide records up to the accident date. The dispute before the court therefore concerned only post-accident records. Egan resisted broader disclosure, offering details of initial medical attendances and arguing that the Mart could rely on the medical report he intended to use, question that consultant, and arrange its own medical assessment.
The judge found that post-accident records were relevant to the injuries claimed and necessary for the fair disposal of the case. He said they could help distinguish complaints related to the accident from those connected with other medical issues, including any overlap with Egan’s prior back problems. The court also rejected the argument that the medical report and possible cross-examination made discovery unnecessary, noting that many personal-injury claims settle without expert cross-examination.
Although the Mart initially sought records without a time limit, it asked at the hearing for five months. The judge considered an unlimited period disproportionate given the injury described, but granted the five-month request. The judgment set out general reasons for disclosure of post-accident records in personal-injury claims while restricting the order in this case to that period. It also provisionally listed the case for mention a week after judgment, with liberty to notify the Registrar if the listing was unnecessary.