The suspension of a gynaecologist from carrying out surgical procedures at a private Galway clinic was due to ideological issues over the clinic's Catholic ethos, it was claimed yesterday.
Bernard Madden SC, for Dr Andrea Hermann, told the High Court there were ulterior motives behind her suspension last month. There were "ideological issues in relation to what medical matters can be carried out by my client", he said.
Eoin McCullough SC, for the Galway Clinic, said it denied these suggestions. The dispute between the clinic and Dr Hermann was contractual, he said.
Dr Hermann (41), Rockbarton Court, Galway, wants an injunction requiring the Galway Clinic Doughiska Ltd and its chief executive officer, Dr Olwyn McWeeney, to reinstate her access to all surgical facilities to the level they were at before being withdrawn by management on December 7th.
Dr Hermann claims her reputation has been damaged and her patients' wellbeing has been adversely affected by the decision to bar her from carrying out surgical procedures at the clinic. The defendants deny the claims.
The court heard Dr Hermann paid €350,000 in June 2004 for a long-term lease on a consulting suite at the Galway Clinic. She claims the clinic provides hospital facilities, including surgical facilities and that while these are owned by the clinic, she is entitled to use them and has been using them since June 28th, 2004.
A memo issued by Dr McWeeney to all consultants at the clinic on November 29th, 2004, stated: "No procedures offensive to the Catholic Church can be undertaken at the Galway Clinic", the court heard.
Dr Hermann was suspended from carrying out surgical procedures for two weeks at the clinic on December 7th. The clinic said this was pending the outcome of a review into two operations in January and December 2005 where complications arose.
In an affidavit, Dr McWeeney said the defendants were not imputing culpability to Dr Hermann for the post-operative difficulties suffered by the two patients. The decision to cancel and reschedule Dr Hermann's scheduled surgical procedures for a limited period was designed solely as a protective measure pending the finding of a review into the causes of the post operative difficulties.
However, Mr Madden argued Dr Hermann was an independent consultant gynaecologist with a right to use the surgical facilities and that the clinic had unilaterally terminated her access to those facilities.
When Dr Hermann bought the lease on the suite in June 2004, she was not told or led to believe that there would be restrictions on the procedures she could undertake.
It was only after she had signed and bought the suite that the defendants sought to change the agreement between her and the clinic, Mr Madden said. The issue was his client's ability to have a surgical facility at the clinic and there had been a breach of contract.
Eoin McCullough for the defendants said Dr Hermann had no arguable case. There was no contractual right between Dr Hermann and the clinic which gave her the right to admit patients. Because she had been carrying out surgical procedures at the clinic did not mean that she had a right to carry out those procedures.
The ethos of the clinic did not arise and was not an issue in the case, Mr McCullough said. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had agreed to appoint three persons to investigate the cases of the two patients and it was hoped to have the results within four to six weeks.
The injunction application was adjourned to February 24th.
Dr Hermann is prohibited from carrying out operations at the clinic but is free to carry on her other medical work.