The Plaintiff, a healthcare worker employed by the Respondent, Ferndale Community Residence, issued proceedings against the Respondent claiming damages for personal injuries allegedly occasioned to the Plaintiff in the course of her work. The Plaintiff referred to two specific incidents which she alleges occurred as a result of the admission of such persons to Ferndale and which she says have had a “profound effect” on her. On the 31st of December 2013, she discovered the suicide of a patient in her care. On the 27th of February 2014, the plaintiff was present in the  immediate aftermath of a suicide attempt by a colleague who she claims was unable to cope with the difficulties being experienced by staff at Ferndale. The Plaintiff further claimed that she had been continuously exposed to the risk of injury and that she did not feel safe at work.

Solicitors for the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendant on the 1st of November 2018 seeking discovery of various documentation such as incident report forms, assessment/valuation report forms conducted at the time of admission of patients to the facility and documentation relating to health and safety in the workplace. The Respondent declined to make discovery in the terms requested and the High Court ruled that some of the categories of discovery requested were not relevant to the claim as the Plaintiff herself had not been physically injured.

 It was the plaintiff’s submission that the trial judge erred, in fact and in law, in finding that the lack of physical injury to the Plaintiff should be determinative in the scope of discovery. The Plaintiff submitted that the discovery sought was relevant and necessary for the proper determination of the proceedings in the light of the denial by the Respondent (in its defence) that the Plaintiff had been exposed to continual risk of injury in her workplace and its further denial that the incidents referred to by the Plaintiff were caused or contributed to by any act, default neglect or omission of the respondent.

The Respondent criticised the lack of specificity in the legal documents provided by the Plaintiff and that the particulars of negligence against the Respondent are non-specific.  The Respondent added that if the court were to allow discovery it would be disproportionate.

The court refused the Plaintiff’s request for discovery, mainly due to its broad nature and the fact that the two specific incidents the Plaintiff referred to did not in fact involve violence or aggression on part of the patients. The court also refused to grant discovery due to potentially violating the patient’s right to privacy and confidentiality. Therefore, the court of appeal sided with the trial judge and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal
https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/0433180b-1061-4c75-8bb3-66dafba5fa50/b6c57bab-78a8-432c-b70d-fab8694f4ba2/[2021]%20IECA%20272.pdf/pdf