The High Court has ruled that Aiden Flanagan’s claim for future medical and travel expenses arising from an assault may be recovered without deducting benefits available through the St. Paul Garda Medical Aid Scheme.
In a judgment delivered on 18 July 2018, Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton said the applicant could not be required to remain in the scheme or pay its premiums to relieve the respondent of compensation liability. The Court found that benefits received or potentially available under the scheme were not deductible at common law. It said there was considerable doubt about whether future expenses would be met in full by the scheme.
The ruling followed an earlier judgment delivered on 23 March 2018. The case had been adjourned so the parties could adjust their claims in light of that judgment and make further submissions. They agreed on some amounts but continued to dispute several issues, including past medical and travel expenses, pension losses, interest and the discount for future contingencies.
The respondent had argued that future medical and travel expenses, put at €249,611, should instead be met by €57,666 representing the capital value of future scheme premiums. The Court rejected that position. It said a specific finding on the issue had already been made and could not be disturbed without agreement between the parties.
The Court also ruled that the applicant could recover losses to his retirement lump sum and weekly pension arising from his retirement or resignation from An Garda Síochána. It said that event would not have occurred but for the injuries caused by the assault. The net loss must be adjusted to reflect a 15 per cent discount for Reddy v. Bates contingencies and retirement at 55 rather than 60.
The respondent had submitted that the pension claims were not recoverable because the earlier judgment had not allowed them. The Court rejected that interpretation, finding that the earlier judgment had allowed the applicant’s pecuniary-loss claims except for amounts attributable to other injuries or conditions. It said any intended rejection of the pension claims would have needed to be stated.
Other matters remained unresolved. The parties differed over past medical and travel expenses, with the respondent prepared to agree €103,325 and the applicant claiming €108,129.52. Interest on agreed past earnings losses could not be calculated until that dispute was decided. The Court adjourned the case again to allow its rulings to be implemented before a final order.