A legal action taken against Peamount Hospital by the two most senior medical personnel there has been settled at the High Court on terms that include the reinstatement of both doctors in their positions. Mary Carolan reports
No details of the settlement were revealed to the court yesterday but it is understood that Prof Luke Clancy is to remain as medical director of Peamount until the end of this year while Dr Kelly will retain his post of senior hospital medical officer.
The action by Prof Clancy and Dr Kelly was initiated after Prof Clancy was told on March 8th last, in pursuit of the implementation of a new five-year strategic plan for the hospital, that he was to finish working for the hospital on March 22nd. He had been medical director for some 20 years and, while receiving 12 months notice on March 8th, was told the hospital required him to work just two weeks of that period.
Dr Kelly's proceedings were taken because of his concern that, unless he agreed by March 22nd to take up a new post, which post was not recognised by Comahirle na nOspidéal and for which the court was told Dr Kelly believed he hadn't the necessary qualifications, he would be treated as having resigned.
The High Court was told that Prof Clancy was the only person of consultant status in the hospital. If he departed as sought in the absence of any transitional arrangements, it was claimed that would leave a situation where patients admitted under his care would remain in the hospital without any doctor of consultant status having any role in their care.
Last month, both doctors secured interim orders restraining interference with their status. On Tuesday, they applied to have those orders continued pending the outcome of their main action.
Yesterday, Mr Justice McKechnie was told by Mr Tom Mallon, for the doctors, that the entire case was fully resolved and the only order required was that the interim injunctions be vacated and the interlocutory motion and action be struck out with no further order.
Mr Justice McKechnie made the orders sought and said he was delighted that the case was settled.
In opening the interlocutory application on Tuesday, Mr Michael Cush SC, for both doctors, said the case was motivated not by money but by concerns about patient care and safety at the hospital and general public health concerns. The doctors were particularly concerned about the absence of any transitional arrangements and lack of consultancy cover for existing and new tuberculosis patients while the new strategic plan for the hospital was being implemented.