The Court of Appeal allowed a defendant limited further discovery of medical records in a personal injury action arising from a 2013 road traffic accident, while refusing most of the records sought. It ordered discovery of the plaintiff’s post-accident records from University Hospital Limerick and her clinical records from Dr Brian Mulcahy, except for material already provided through discovery or expert-report disclosure. The defendant must pay the plaintiff’s expenses for making that discovery.
The plaintiff, a minor when the action began, alleges that injuries from the collision and a later diagnosis of Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (HEDS) led to serious, continuing health problems. The defendant does not contest liability but disputes whether the plaintiff’s present condition was caused by the accident. The medical conditions and their alleged connection to the collision were claims in the proceedings; the appeal did not determine their medical cause.
The defendant’s latest application sought records across eight categories, including records from hospitals, clinics, doctors and mental health services. The Court of Appeal said the request substantially repeated an earlier, broader application and included some material already disclosed. It also lacked a time limit and came late in the proceedings, without explaining why the information had not been sought earlier or why records already supplied were insufficient. The plaintiff’s solicitors had said further delay would be harmful given her health and care needs.
The court held that a party seeking further discovery after an earlier application must justify the renewed request, particularly where it overlaps with material previously sought and the trial may be delayed. An expert’s view that records are needed is relevant, but the court must decide whether they are necessary and must have enough information to assess what each category would add.
The court found a specific reason to allow Dr Mulcahy’s clinical records: the defendant’s expert said they were needed to examine how the HEDS diagnosis was reached. It also allowed post-accident University Hospital Limerick records, citing the emphasis placed on that hospital and the plaintiff’s reported extensive treatment there. The defendant’s other requested categories were refused. The court said its order did not require the plaintiff to disclose again material already provided.
The appeal concerned discovery only. The Court of Appeal did not decide the personal injury claim or the disputed medical causation issues. Its provisional view was that the plaintiff should recover half the costs of the discovery application in the High Court and the appeal, subject to either party objecting within four days and a remote hearing being arranged if needed.