The High Court has allowed former soldier Peter Webb to expand his personal injuries proceedings arising from a 2002 collision between two armoured personnel carriers to include allegations about his subsequent Army medical treatment.
Mr Webb claimed he was standing in the turret of an armoured personnel carrier travelling on a public road on April 22nd, 2002 when it was struck from behind by another military vehicle. His original case alleged negligence in the driving of the second vehicle.
He initially suffered bruising and soft-tissue injuries to his neck and lower back. Persistent symptoms later included lower-back pain radiating into his left leg, numbness and paraesthesia. An MRI scan in 2005 showed a disc protrusion at L5/S1. He was eventually medically discharged from the Defence Forces in 2007.
In 2009, Mr Webb sought to amend his pleadings. The proposed allegations included claims that the Army Medical Corps failed to adequately monitor his continuing back complaints, delayed referring him for an MRI scan, failed to investigate subsequent falls and back symptoms, and failed to allocate appropriate light duties.
The State opposed the amendment. It argued that Mr Webb was attempting to introduce a separate medical-negligence claim after the limitation period had expired and that the passage of about seven years prejudiced its ability to investigate the allegations.
Mr Justice Herbert rejected that argument. He held that the original negligence proceedings had been commenced within time and that the proposed allegations were reasonably connected with the consequences of the accident already pleaded.
The judge said it was arguable that a need for medical treatment was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the original accident and that inadequate treatment could have caused further damage. Whether that case could ultimately be established was for the trial judge.
The court also found no irremediable prejudice to the State. Relevant Army medical personnel had been traced and medical records and reports remained available.
The amendment was therefore permitted, with questions concerning any conditions and costs left for further submissions.