Foran v O'Connell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Morris
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 78
• Docket Number: Record No. 2590P/1994
• Court: High Court
• Date: 06 May 1997

[1997] IEHC 78

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 2590P/1994

FORAN v. O'CONNELL

BETWEEN

MARGARET FORAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

PATRICIA O'CONNELL

DEFENDANT

Citations:

BAULK V IRISH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD 1969 IR 66

ARMSTRONG V CALLAGHAN UNREP SUPREME 5.2.67

PRIOR V INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NEWS LTD 1993 1 IR 339

MCCOOEY V MIN FOR FINANCE 1971 IR 159

RSC O.8 r1

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Application to renew summons pursuant to Ord. 8, r. 1, R.S.C. 1986; whether renewal would do injustice to defendant Held: Application granted; no injustice to defendant (High Court: Morris J.06/05/1997)

Foran v. O'Connell

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Morrisdelivered the 6th day of May,1997.

2 The Plaintiff in this action claims damages for personal injuries, loss and damage which she suffered by the alleged negligence and breach of duty of the Defendant or her servants or agents arising out of the treatment which she received from the Plaintiff who was her generalpractitioner.

3 The Plaintiffs claim can be summarised as follows. She says that she was a patient of Dr. O'Connell's between the years 1989 and 1992. In 1989 she had problems for which she received treatment from Dr. O'Connell. The treatment included the prescription of pain killers and steroids. She reacted to this treatment and required admission to St. Vincent's Hospital where she came under the care of specialists. On discharge from hospital, she says, in 1991 she received further treatment from the Defendant who again put her back on steroidswhen she had a very severe reaction. In broad summary the negligence alleged is that the Defendant failed to recognise that it was improper, in view of her previous reaction, to prescribe steroids and the Plaintiff claims the personal injury, loss and damage thatresulted.

4 The Plaintiff says that after she had the reaction she returned to Dr. O'Connell, she made a complaint to her and said that she, Dr. O'Connell, was responsible and that Dr. O'Connell suggested that she write down all her complaints and in fact gave her as a precedent a letter (written by another patient) which the doctor suggested she might use. The Plaintiff says that she used this precedent, completed, first of all a rough draft, then a full letter of complaint which she says she posted to Dr. O'Connell marked "personal and private". She subsequently visited the doctor but made no reference to the complaints in her letter on that occasion.

5 A severe conflict of evidence arises in that Dr. O'Connell denies having received this letter as also does her secretary, Ms. K. Nolan. She says that the first that she knew of any dissatisfaction on the part of the Plaintiff was on the 13th May, 1996 when she received a letter from the Plaintiffs Solicitor. The summons,...