Power v Tesco Ireland Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, employed as a general retail assistant by Company A, sustained injuries in July 2014 after falling over shopping crates placed in her path at the Defendant's premises. The Plaintiff initiated personal injury proceedings against the Defendant. The Defendant acknowledges the occurrence of the accident but disputes the extent and nature of the injuries claimed by the Plaintiff, requiring proof of a causal link between the accident and the injuries alleged.

The Defendant applied to the court under Order 31, rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended) seeking discovery of various categories of the Plaintiff's medical records. The Defendant referenced the Supreme Court decision in McGrory v. ESB [2003] 3 IR 407 to support its request. No application was made under Order 39, rule 47 concerning alleged non-disclosure by the Plaintiff.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant is entitled to discovery of various categories of the Plaintiff’s medical records in personal injury proceedings.
2. The scope and limits of disclosure and discovery obligations in personal injury claims, particularly regarding medical records and expert reports.
3. How the principles established in McGrory v. ESB and related case law apply to the requested discovery in this case.
4. The appropriate temporal limits and proportionality considerations in ordering discovery of medical records.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• Discovery of medical records is necessary to establish the causal link between the accident and the injuries claimed by the Plaintiff.
• The requested categories of documentation are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the issues between the parties and for cost-saving purposes.
• Reference to McGrory v. ESB supports the right to disclosure of medical records and cooperation by the Plaintiff in personal injury litigation.
• Discovery should include medical notes, reports, scans, and correspondence from hospitals, general practitioners, specialists, physiotherapists, and psychotherapists covering relevant periods before and after the accident.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Medical examination by a physician appointed by the Defendant has already occurred, and that physician may liaise with the Plaintiff’s doctors and consult their records.
• Discovery requests, particularly for some categories, are unnecessary and represent a 'fishing exercise' without proof of necessity.
• Opposed to disclosure absent proof that documents are necessary rather than merely desirable.
• Some categories of requested discovery duplicate others and should be refused on grounds of proportionality and relevance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recognizing the unique disclosure framework applicable to personal injury proceedings, governed by the Rules of the Superior Courts and the statutory and case law principles emphasizing relevance, necessity, and proportionality.

It noted that the Defendant’s request for discovery of medical records must be assessed in light of the established legal principles, particularly those articulated in McGrory v. ESB, which balances the Plaintiff’s right to privacy against the Defendant’s right to a fair trial through access to relevant medical information.

The court acknowledged that discovery should be limited to documents that are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the issues and that proportionality must be considered to avoid oppressive or overly broad discovery.

Applying these principles, the court examined each category of medical documentation requested by the Defendant:

• Category 1 and 2: Medical records relating to the accident and subsequent treatment were deemed relevant and necessary, and discovery was ordered without temporal limitation beyond the period specified.
• Category 3: Prior medical history for five years before the accident was requested. The court found this relevant due to discrepancies between claimed injuries and diagnostic results but limited discovery to a three-year period before the accident to ensure proportionality.
• Category 4: Records from physiotherapists and psychotherapists for twelve months post-accident were ordered as relevant and necessary, reflecting the Plaintiff’s claims of diminished functional capacity and hypervigilance.
• Category 5: Hospital admission and discharge records for five years prior to the accident were ordered, but the remainder of this category was refused due to duplication of Category 3 and proportionality concerns, with a three-year limit applied.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiff must notify the Defendant if any documents are privileged, preserving the Plaintiff’s right to withhold privileged material.

Finally, the court noted that if the Defendant believes there has been insufficient disclosure, it may apply under Order 39, rule 47 for further relief.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED discovery of the specified categories of medical records subject to temporal limits and proportionality considerations as detailed in the reasoning.

The effect of this decision is to clarify and apply established principles regarding discovery in personal injury litigation, reinforcing the Defendant’s right to access relevant and necessary medical documentation while safeguarding the Plaintiff’s privacy and ensuring proportionality. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing law to the facts of this case to facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute.