The Supreme Court has dismissed Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s appeal against the Board of Management of St. Mary’s Touraneena National School over a proposed medical assessment before her return from sick leave. The Court concluded that the board was entitled to invoke the assessment procedure and that its later offer to arrange an assessment with a different specialist could not support the judicial review relief she sought.
Fitzpatrick, a teacher and deputy principal at the school, had been on sick leave since around September 2005. She alleged that she had experienced bullying and harassment at work. In January 2006, she notified the board that she intended to return the following month and supplied a GP certificate stating that she was fit to work, subject to working in a safe and stress-free environment.
The board referred her for an independent medical assessment under Clause 7.3 of the Department’s Primary Circular 10/05. The judge, Mr Justice William McKechnie, said that the board’s concerns were supported by the reported connection between workplace stress and Fitzpatrick’s health. He also distinguished the Chief Medical Officer’s earlier review of a consultant psychiatrist’s report, which had been sought under a separate rule, from the decision-making role the CMO could have under Clause 7.4 of the Circular.
The first referral became contentious after the board chair sent background documents to the local medical adviser, including a memorandum prepared by the school principal, against whom allegations had also been made. Fitzpatrick objected to seeing the specialist selected following that process. The Court said it had serious doubts about aspects of how the initial referral was handled, including the chair’s involvement and the use of the memorandum, but did not decide those issues.
During later correspondence, the board agreed to ask the local medical adviser to nominate a different specialist and said it would provide that specialist only material the specialist requested. The adviser referred Fitzpatrick to Dr Martin Lawlor. The proposed assessment did not proceed before she began judicial review proceedings. The Supreme Court considered the board’s offer justifiable in principle and held that it had addressed her complaints sufficiently to defeat the appeal. It did not decide what information the new specialist would have requested or whether any particular process would have followed.
The High Court had dismissed the judicial review application after a five-day trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds before it. It also held that the appeal against the Minister for Education and Science could not proceed on the pleaded grounds granted at leave stage. The judgment did not determine whether the initial referral or the memorandum involved legal infirmities; it concluded that any such matters could not sustain the relief sought after the later offer.