The High Court has ruled that a man pursuing a personal injuries claim must provide eight years of pre-accident medical records and three months of post-accident records to the defendant. The discovery decision does not determine whether the road accident caused or contributed to his later hip replacement.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 19 February 2021 in proceedings brought by Dermot McCorry against Margaret McCorry. The defendant’s liability had been admitted, and the case was proceeding to an assessment of damages. The court heard the discovery motion on 15 February 2021.
The claim arises from a road traffic accident on 7 March 2018. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by the defendant, his wife. The pleaded account says the vehicle skidded on black ice, went into a ditch and overturned onto its side. The plaintiff claimed soft-tissue injuries and later developed right pelvic pain. He underwent a right hip replacement on 29 June 2018.
The plaintiff’s case, as stated by his solicitors, was that the accident was a “contributory/precipitating factor” in the operation. The judgment records that the initial accident-related treatment and a medical examination about four weeks later did not appear to include a complaint of hip pain.
The plaintiff’s pleaded medical history included Parkinson’s disease, previous prostate cancer treatment, a prior hernia repair and a suprapubic catheter. A consultant in emergency medicine, who examined him for the defendant’s insurers, questioned whether the accident caused a fracture to the right hip and said another pathological process appeared more likely. He recommended an opinion from a hip orthopaedic surgeon.
The plaintiff argued that there was no proper evidential basis for requiring post-accident records. The defendant submitted that the medical report and the disputed link between the accident and surgery made those records relevant. The judge held that the court itself must decide relevance and necessity, and found the report and the issues in the claim provided an evidential basis for discovery.
The court concluded that records covering the three months after the accident were relevant and necessary to the fair disposal of the case, and that the period was proportionate because it ran from the accident to the hip operation. It also ordered eight years of pre-accident records, reasoning that the period could capture diagnosis and treatment relating to the plaintiff’s prostate cancer and surveillance of his hip condition.
The judgment states that the parties should correspond on the precise wording of the order, including whether the post-accident category should refer to “medical records” rather than only “hospital records”. If they could not agree, short written submissions were requested within two weeks. The judge’s provisional view was that the defendant should receive the costs of the motion, with adjudication and execution stayed pending the proceedings. The plaintiff could seek a different costs order through written submissions.