The Court of Appeal has dismissed a psychiatric nurse’s appeal against the refusal of broad discovery requests in her personal injuries case against the Health Service Executive (HSE). The court upheld the High Court’s decision to refuse the disputed categories, while noting that the parties had separately agreed to discovery of documents about admission policy at Ferndale Community Residence.
Catherine (Tina) McCormack’s claim concerns her work at the HSE facility in Dooradoyle, Limerick. She alleges that from 2013 the HSE admitted patients whose violent or aggressive behaviour made them unsuitable for Ferndale, exposing staff to danger. She also alleges that she discovered a patient’s suicide on 31 December 2013 and was present after a colleague’s suicide attempt on 27 February 2014. The judgment records that she did not particularise incidents of patient violence or aggression.
McCormack sought six categories of documents, including reports of patient violence, patient admission assessments and monitoring records, and material about her training and workplace safety. At the High Court hearing, the HSE agreed to provide documents in category (b), concerning the two incidents pleaded in her summons. The remaining categories were disputed. The High Court refused them, considering them irrelevant or disproportionate, including because they could involve third-party medical records.
During the appeal, the parties agreed that the HSE would disclose documents evidencing Ferndale’s admissions policy, changes to it between 2012 and 2014, and any risk assessment concerning violence or aggression during that period. The Court of Appeal said this agreement adequately addressed the purpose of categories (a), (c) and (d), which sought broad records of incidents, assessments and patient behaviour.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Binchy, the court said the absence of a physical injury caused by a violent patient did not by itself determine relevance. It considered the pleadings as a whole, but found they gave no details of even one incident of patient violence or aggression, despite a request for particulars. The court said the broad requests for patient records were not shown to be relevant to the case as pleaded. It did not need to decide the privacy and data protection arguments raised about those records.
The court also upheld refusal of categories (e) and (f), concerning training and safety measures. It said the claim did not allege that McCormack was subjected to a violent act or saw others subjected to one, and did not explain how her training was inadequate or what training should have been provided. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment did not determine the underlying personal injuries claim.