Van Der Zaan v The National Maternity Hospital [2020] IEHC 83 (24 February 2020)
BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
Page 1 ⇓
THE HIGH COURT
[2020] IEHC 83
[2019 No. 834 P]
BETWEEN
ORLA VAN DER ZAAN
PLAINTIFF
– AND –
THE NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Max Barrett delivered on 24th February 2020.
1. This is a motion for judgment in default of defence in medical negligence proceedings
arising out of an ectopic pregnancy. The following elements of the statement of claim are
worth noting at the outset:
4 May 2017 Plaintiff undergoes salpingectomy at defendant hospital.
5 May 2017. Plaintiff discharged.
6 May 2017. Plaintiff re-attends at defendant hospital in pain and distress.
9 May 2017. Results of tests confirm a benign paratubal serous cyst.
16 May 2017. Plaintiff attends at Tallaght Hospital and undergoes further salpingectomy.
2. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant failed to perform a full salpingectomy, failed to
record that only a partial salpingectomy was performed, and failed to make sufficient
efforts to contact the plaintiff to apprise her of certain test results. The following
chronology is pertinent to the within application:
1 February
2019
12 February
2019
7 March 2019
Personal injuries summons issues.
Appearance entered.
State Claims Agency asks plaintiff’s solicitor to provide a
copy of the plaintiff’s medical records.
22 March
2019
Plaintiff’s solicitor refuses to provide documentation but
states that once defence issues, discovery process will be
engaged with.
1 April 2019
Plaintiff’s solicitor sends affidavit of verification and requests
immediate delivery of defence.
10 April 2019
Notice for particulars and request for information raised.
State Claims Agency indicates that defence will be delivered
within eight weeks and seeks Tallaght Hospital records.
11 April 2019
Plaintiff’s solicitor issues 21-day warning letter with regard
to defence (crosses in post with correspondence of 10 April).
Page 2 ⇓
7 May 2019
Plaintiff’s solicitor writes indicating that defendant had been
served with a detailed personal injury summons, that it had
access to its own hospital records and that once a defence
was delivered it would be entitled to seek discovery.
1 July 2019
Defendant indicates that “original chart” has been mislaid,
that it understands the plaintiff to have a copy of same and
requests copy.
15 November
2019
Replies delivered for plaintiff. Plaintiff’s solicitor raises
concerns that the chart has been mislaid and reiterates that
he will reply to discovery requests at appropriate point.
26 November
2019
8 January
2020
17 January
2020
29 January
2020
Letter issues calling for delivery of defence.
Within motion issues.
Notice of motion served.
Voluntary discovery letter issues. Defendant also issues
letter complaining that all relevant documentation not
exhibited to motion grounding affidavit, stating, inter alia:
“In particular our letter to you dated 1 July 2019 wherein we explained that
the hospital has misplaced the original chart in respect of the plaintiff’s care.
We asked you to provide us with a copy of the chart provided to you by the
hospital in August 2017. The defendant is not in a position to investigate the
plaintiff’s claim, to include obtaining independent expert evidence [in] respect
of liability and causation, without access to the original hospital chart or the
copy in your possession. We repeat our request for a copy of all medical
records released to you by the defendant referable to her cause of action.”
6 February
2020
Letter from plaintiff’s solicitor indicating, inter alia, that
there was no basis to depart from ordinary rule whereby a
discovery request issues following the closing of pleadings.
3. The court notes in passing that: -
(i) no formal request for discovery issued prior to the motion now under consideration,
when the formal request did issue it came weeks after the issuance of the motion
now under consideration and months after the plaintiff had first stated that it would
only respond to requests for discovery after the pleadings closed;
(ii) at all times since the defendant’s letter of 1 July 2019 was received, the plaintiff
has known that the hospital does not hold its own chart or, more exactly, that the
chart has been mislaid by the hospital;
Page 3 ⇓
(iii) because the plaintiff was provided with a copy of the mislaid chart in 2017, the only
person(s) now in possession of same are the plaintiff and/or her solicitors;
(iv) no meaningful response has issued to the defendant concerning how to proceed
given the facts referred to at (ii)-(iii).
4. It seems to the court that the answer to how it ought now to proceed is to be found in the
decision of the Supreme Court in McGrory v. ESB [2003] 3 IR 407. The facts of that case
are usefully summarised as follows in the headnote to the reported judgment:
“The plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while
working for the defendant. The solicitor for the defendant wrote twice to the
solicitors for the plaintiff stating that they wished to have him examined by a
consultant neurosurgeon and seeking the names of the plaintiff’s medical advisors
with whom the defendant’s consultant could discuss the case. The plaintiff’s solicitor
replied confirming that they had no objection to the plaintiff being medically
examined but stating that they did not have instructions to consent to his case
being discussed between doctors. The defendants issued a notice of motion seeking
an order staying the proceeding until such time as the plaintiff consented to allow
his medical advisors consult with the defendant’s medical advisors. No defence was
delivered. The High Court...refused the application and the defendants appealed to
the Supreme Court [which allowed the appeal].”
5. In his judgment for the Supreme Court, Keane CJ observes, inter alia, as follows, at pp.
414-5:
“The right of the defendant in an action where the plaintiff claims damages for
personal injuries to have the plaintiff medically examined, to have access to his
medical records and to interview his treating doctors is not dependant on the
pleadings having been closed. In such proceedings, damages are always in issue,
unless the parties at some stage come to an agreement on quantum….Once
proceedings have been instituted, such an examination and full access to the
plaintiff’s medical records and interviews with his medical advisors are of assistance
in enabling the defendants to form a view as to the amount of damages which the
plaintiff is likely to recover and of any lodgement which they should prudently make
in court with their defence. Whether or not liability is a live issue in the case,
making such material available to the defendant at an early stage of the litigation,
instead of withholding it until the action itself when it will have to be produced, can
only facilitate the earlier settlement of actions.”
6. The foregoing seems to have especial resonance in the context of the within proceedings
where the plaintiff has known since receipt of the letter of 1 July 2019 that the defendant
does not hold the mislaid chart, a copy of which is needed by the defendant to engage
one or more experts to produce one or more expert reports. Indeed, without such expert
report/s the defendant is, to use a colloquialism, ‘hamstrung’ in terms of investigating
matters and having an expert look at the issues of breach of duty and causation.
Page 4 ⇓
7. Given all the foregoing, the court, having due regard to the decision of the Supreme Court
in McGrory, will: (1) direct that the plaintiff provide back to the defendant a copy of the
mislaid chart that she now has in her possession so that, in the interests of all the parties,
these proceedings can progress with due expedition to whatever conclusion is ultimately
arrived at; (2) order that a defence to the within proceedings be entered within 12 weeks
of the receipt, by the defendant from the plaintiff, of the said mislaid chart.
Result: Judgment in favour of the defendant.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2020/2020IEHC83.html
