The High Court has confirmed a Medical Council decision to censure an anaesthetist and attach conditions to her registration following an inquiry into the care of a patient who suffered a catastrophic brain injury during surgery in 2014.
The patient, Frank Cowan, underwent elective surgery at the Santry Sports Clinic in Dublin on 22 September 2014. The judgment says he sustained a hypoxic brain injury during the procedure and was left completely dependent, tube fed and with no prospect of meaningful recovery.
The Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee considered nine allegations arising from the anaesthetic care. Two were not proceeded with. The respondent admitted the remaining seven: five were found to amount to poor professional performance and two to professional misconduct. The findings included failures to respond adequately to blood pressure monitoring problems, absences from theatre, incomplete or inaccurate chart entries, and failures to record ephedrine administration and its effects. The Committee relied on the admissions and evidence from an independent consultant anaesthetist.
The Committee recommended censure and conditions requiring further training, a professional development plan, regular oversight by a nominated person and notification to specified employers or organisations. The Council adopted that recommendation in December 2016. The respondent did not appeal; the Council applied to the High Court under section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 for confirmation.
At an initial hearing, the court raised concerns about the level of sanction, public protection while the respondent continued practising, and whether the notification condition required her to inform individual private patients. The Council reconvened to clarify its intention: the respondent was to notify hospitals or organisations granting her working privileges, but not each patient individually. The court then heard the respondent’s submissions and evidence at an inter partes hearing.
Mr Justice Kelly said the court’s role under section 76 was limited. It had to confirm the Council’s decision unless there was “good reason” not to do so, such as procedural unfairness or a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable Council could have made it. He said the threshold had not been met. Although the sanction could be considered lenient, the court could not refuse confirmation merely because it might have preferred a different or more protective sanction.
The court granted the application and confirmed the Council’s decision to attach the conditions. The judgment did not impose a suspension or change the conditions; it confirmed the Council’s decision under the statutory procedure.