ARTICLE
14 March 2013

Flynn v The Medical Council

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
Mr Flynn injured himself in 1987 by pressing the back of his palate with his finger, which caused him severe pain and difficulty swallowing.
Ireland Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Matheson are most popular:
  • within Immigration topic(s)

Mr Flynn injured himself in 1987 by pressing the back of his palate with his finger, which caused him severe pain and difficulty swallowing.  His ongoing complaints were investigated by several medical practitioners, but no diagnosis was reached.

In 2008, he commenced medical negligence proceedings against two hospitals and expert evidence was commissioned from a specialist UK Radiologist.  The expert reviewed CT scans from 1994 and suspected an injury which was previously missed. However, the expert said that it was a particularly rare type of injury, which most general radiologists would not have identified.

On foot of this report, Mr Flynn also made a complaint regarding two of his former medical practitioners to the Medical Council, alleging that they had deliberately misrepresented the results of CT scans to him.  The Preliminary Proceedings Committee ("PPC") investigated the complaint and declined to refer it to a Fitness to Practise Inquiry.  Critically, the PPC relied on the expert view that the particular condition was so unusual that most radiologists would never have encountered it. 

Mr Flynn sought to judicially review the PPC’s decision, claiming that it did not give adequate reasons and that it was unreasonable and unsustainable on the facts. 

Judge Hogan, in the High Court, stated that as a general principle the PPC’s decisions must be bona fide, reasonable and factually sustainable.   The PPC is obliged to disclose the essential retionale for its decision.  This should be obvious from the terms of the decision or easily inferred. Unless adequate reasons are given, the High Court cannot assess the lawfulness of a decision.

Judge Hogan held that in light of the expert opinion in this case, it was impossible to find that the doctors were guilty of poor professional performance. The PPC's decision was adequately reasoned and capable of independent justification. Judge Hogan therefore, declined leave to commence judicial review proceedings.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More