Delivering an ex tempore judgment in July, Mr Justice Barniville confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to attach conditions to a doctor’s registration following findings of poor professional performance arising from comments made to a patient during a medical consultation.
The proceedings arose from a complaint made to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) of the Medical Council on 13 May 2021. The complainant alleged that, during a medical consultation, the respondent doctor had told her that she was “sitting on a bomb, a health bomb” and that there was “almost a 90 per cent chance” that she had cancer.
Both the complainant and the respondent, a Polish national, were serving in the Irish Defence Forces at the time and had been deployed to a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. The complainant had attended the consultation to discuss the downgrading of her medical status following the incorrect recording of a cancer diagnosis on her medical records. Although that entry had been corrected before the consultation, the complainant and an officer accompanying her considered that the respondent had told her that she had cancer.
On 20 April 2022, the PPC formed the opinion that further action was warranted on the basis of alleged professional misconduct and/or poor professional performance. A Notice of Inquiry was subsequently issued to the respondent in June 2025 alleging that his comments were inappropriate and unsupported by medical evidence. The allegations were pursued on the basis of poor professional performance.
The inquiry took place in the respondent’s absence in September 2025. The Fitness to Practise Committee found the allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that the respondent’s conduct amounted to poor professional performance. The Committee found that the respondent’s statements were inaccurate and that he should have familiarised himself with the complainant’s up-to-date medical records before meeting her.
The Committee also found that the language used by the respondent was inappropriate, observing that it was difficult to consider it appropriate for a doctor to communicate a cancer diagnosis using the term “health bomb” without first establishing that the information being conveyed was accurate. It concluded that the respondent had failed to demonstrate an appropriate level of communication skills during the consultation.
While acknowledging that the conduct arose from a single incident, the Committee considered it to be a serious and significant failure which had caused distress to the complainant and her colleague. Having regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors, and noting that the respondent had since retired to Poland but remained registered on the general division of the Irish medical register, the Committee recommended a sanction of censure together with conditions on his registration.
The conditions required the respondent, if he returned to Ireland to practise as a registered GP, to complete an approved advanced communication skills course within three months. He was also required to notify the Medical Council within seven days of returning to Ireland to resume practice, provide evidence of successful completion of the course and report his key learning to the Monitoring Committee. Further conditions required him to cooperate with any visit, inspection or report considered appropriate by the Medical Council and to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions when requested.
The Medical Council determined that the recommended sanction was appropriate and applied to the High Court for confirmation pursuant to section 76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.
Mr Justice Barniville noted that, under section 76(3) of the 2007 Act, the High Court was required to confirm the Medical Council’s decision unless there was “good reason” not to do so. The judge further noted that while High Court confirmation was required in respect of conditions attached to a doctor’s registration, it was not required in respect of a censure.
The court endorsed the approach set out in Medical Council v M.A.G.A [2016] IEHC 779, Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401 and Teaching Council v S.R. [2018] IEHC 582. Under that approach, the court should confirm a regulatory decision unless there had been a procedural impropriety or irregularity, a failure to observe natural or constitutional justice, a serious and significant error, or the decision was one which no reasonable regulatory body could have made on the evidence before it.
Finding that the approach taken by the Medical Council and the Fitness to Practise Committee was unimpeachable, Mr Justice Barniville considered the decision to be “entirely appropriate, proper and proportionate” and compliant with the relevant legal principles governing professional disciplinary sanctions.
Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the Medical Council’s decision to attach conditions to the respondent’s registration pursuant to section 71(1)(c) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.