The Court of Appeal has dismissed James Egan’s appeal against an order requiring him to disclose medical records relating to treatment in the five months after an accident at a livestock mart. The appeal concerned discovery only; the court did not decide whether the mart was liable or what caused Egan’s ongoing pain.
Egan’s personal injury claim arises from an incident on 13 November 2017 at Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Limited’s premises. He says he was in a designated safe area when a bullock struck his left leg. The company disputes the claim, denies responsibility for an animal owned by a third party and alleges that Egan was contributorily negligent.
The personal injury summons, issued in April 2020, described a swollen and bruised leg, continuing pain and difficulty standing, climbing stairs and walking. Updated injury particulars delivered in February 2022 described a more complex picture. They referred to a history of back pain and spinal surgery, and to an MRI showing compression of the left L5 nerve root. A consultant considered that the nerve compression and the leg injury were each contributing to the ongoing lower-leg pain. The company’s defence disputes that the ongoing complaints were caused by the accident.
Before the discovery motion was heard in the High Court, Egan agreed to disclose records concerning back or leg pain for the five years before the accident and records of his initial medical attendance after it. The High Court later ordered discovery of the additional post-accident records sought by the company. Egan appealed, arguing that those records were unnecessary because the company could obtain medical reports and question medical witnesses, and that disclosure should generally be limited to exceptional cases.
In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2023, Ms Justice Butler said there was no general rule barring discovery of post-accident treatment records. The court must assess necessity in each case, while respecting the confidential nature of medical records. Here, the updated particulars and the dispute over whether the accident aggravated or overlapped with a pre-existing back condition provided an evidential basis for the request. The appeal court also noted that no evidence had been put forward to show the five-month request would be excessively burdensome.
The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the discovery order in place. It did not make a final costs order in the judgment: Butler J. proposed that the company receive the appeal costs, stayed on the same terms as the High Court costs order, and gave Egan 14 days to file written submissions opposing that proposal. The underlying personal injury proceedings remain distinct from this discovery decision.