The High Court has ruled that the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 does not apply to a patient’s claim against the Mater Misericordiae Hospital over injuries she suffered after falling while in hospital.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 8 June 2011, followed a preliminary hearing on whether the claim came within section 3 of the Act or was excluded by its provisions. The judge was asked to decide that question, not whether the claim was otherwise time-barred.
The judgment says Patricia Carroll was an inpatient at the hospital in May 2005 and was taking several drugs. She left her bed unaccompanied to go to the bathroom, became dizzy, fainted and fell, suffering what the judgment describes as severe personal injury.
The hospital argued that her claim was outside the Act because it arose from the provision of a health service or medical advice or treatment. It maintained the claim was statute-barred under the two-year limit, noting that the personal injuries summons was issued on 17 April 2008. The judge said a date-of-knowledge issue was not before him.
For the plaintiff, counsel argued that the claim concerned nursing care and the management and maintenance of the hospital, rather than medical treatment. The plaintiff’s submissions relied on the distinction between nursing and medical care and argued that the section’s exclusion was directed at medical negligence.
The judge said the court had to assess the factual circumstances pleaded, rather than the legal label attached to the claim. He found that the summons and reply to the defence indicated the claim arose from the hospital’s prescribing medication. To succeed, the plaintiff would need to establish that the medication’s effects made dizziness and fainting foreseeable if she got out of bed and walked to the bathroom, and that nursing assistance was required in those circumstances. That would require medical evidence, the judgment said.
The court concluded that the claim arose from a mix of nursing care and medical treatment and was covered by section 3(d)’s exclusion. It therefore held that the PIAB Act did not apply. The judgment does not determine whether the claim was statute-barred or resolve the underlying negligence allegations.