The High Court has quashed a review decision refusing to certify a prison officer’s absence from work as arising from an occupational injury. It ordered the matter to be reconsidered by an independent body or persons, including consideration of whether the injury had to be wholly or only partly caused by the workplace incident.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2015, Ms Justice Baker said the review of the decision had been conducted at the same level of the structure as the original decision. That did not provide a sufficiently robust or independent review and failed to meet the requirements of natural justice.
The applicant, Linda Nolan, was injured in an assault during a riot at St Patrick’s Institution on 26 December 2005. The earlier periods of absence that she attributed to the assault had been certified under the occupational injury scheme. The dispute concerned a later absence from 28 February to 25 November 2010, following a disc prolapse and surgery.
Nolan argued that her ongoing back problems were linked to the assault. The Irish Prison Service and the Minister for Justice and Equality disputed that connection, relying on advice from the Chief Medical Officer that the later condition could not be attributed to the 2005 incident and that some problems might relate to a pre-existing condition.
The court did not decide whether the 2010 condition was medically caused by the assault. Justice Baker said judicial review was limited to examining the decision-making process, rather than determining the extent or cause of Nolan’s injuries. She found no sufficient basis to conclude that the initial decision-making process was irrational or that the Chief Medical Officer had failed to consider the material presented.
The court also noted that Nolan had been allowed to submit extensive documents and legal submissions during the subsequent review. But the review was carried out by someone in the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, possibly the same doctor involved at first instance. Justice Baker said a review must be sufficiently independent in fact and in appearance.
A separate unresolved issue was the test applied to causation. The judgment said the decision-makers had not addressed whether all the complained-of injuries had to flow from the workplace incident, or whether some causal contribution was sufficient. The court remitted that question for consideration alongside the occupational injury application.
The order quashes the 13 November 2013 decision and sends the matter back for independent further consideration. It does not itself certify the 2010 absence as an occupational injury or determine the medical causation dispute.