The High Court ordered discovery of several categories of medical records in personal injuries proceedings brought by Rosemary Power against Tesco Ireland Limited after a 2014 accident at work. The order covered records relating to treatment after the accident and selected records from before it, with limits intended to avoid disproportionate discovery.
Ms Power said she was injured in July 2014 when she fell over shopping crates placed in her way while working as a general retail assistant. Tesco accepted that the accident occurred but disputed that she suffered the injuries claimed and required her to establish a causal link between the accident and those injuries.
Tesco applied under Order 31, rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts for discovery of medical records. The court noted that Tesco had not sought an order under Order 39, rule 47 alleging a failure to make disclosure. It considered the principles governing discovery in personal injuries cases, including the need for relevance and necessity, with proportionality also taken into account.
The court ordered records from Ms Power’s attendance at South Tipperary General Hospital on 22 July 2014 and subsequent attendances there, as well as records from her GP for the 12 months after the accident. It also ordered records from treating physiotherapists and psychotherapists for the 12 months after the accident.
For pre-accident records, the court found that the claimed injuries and the X-ray and scan results provided a basis for discovery. It ordered records from treating medical practitioners for the three years before the accident, reducing Tesco’s requested five-year period. It also ordered hospital admission and discharge records for a three-year pre-accident period. The balance of Tesco’s request for other hospital records was refused because it largely duplicated the broader category of medical records.
The court said Ms Power could claim privilege over documents covered by the order, preventing Tesco from inspecting those documents. It also noted that if Tesco contended there was a deficiency in disclosure already made, it could bring a separate application under Order 39, rule 47. The judgment concerned discovery only; it did not determine liability or whether the accident caused the injuries claimed.