Medical case - unable to attend due to clinical responsibilities

Dav010

kirving wrote: »

It depends on the circumstance, you could pick and choose examples all day.

Would a leaking oxygen supply pipe to an ICU ward be more urgent than a knee surgery?

How about a blocked coolant pipe going to a nuclear reactor vs a follow up to a mole removal?

Which nuclear reactor are you referring to? Yes agreed, the oxygen leak would be a medical emergency,

You are right of course, staff need to be available to maintain all the nuclear reactors in ireland

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

Which nuclear reactor are you referring to? Yes agreed, the oxygen leak would be a medical emergency,

That's just semantics really, but my (obviously extreme) example could happen anywhere in Europe and have a direct and grave consequences for Ireland.

Equally though, the OP said "clinical responsibilities" for which I assume cover could be planned for in advance. Nothing suggest that emergency medicine is being disrupted.

If the day came and the OP was in fact involved in something urgent, I'm sure that a quick phone call would absolve them of any repercussions for not attending.

Inconspicuous

Deleted User wrote: »

So, I've been called to a "legal case" regarding a clinical matter. I had no involvement in the actual incident but would have been involved in the patient's care in general. Anyway, the HSE said I would not be allowed to take leave off work to attend this (due to clinical responsibilities etc). Received an E-mail (after saying that it was decided by my superiors that it didn't actually relate to me) saying I would be in contempt of court if I didn't attend.

Can a court insist you attend and make you use annual leave to make a statement at a court case?

A court can compel you to attend and in such cases an order will be issued to you. Failure to comply can have serious consequences.

The HSE, may not be able to refuse you going (and certainly not where the court has compelled you to attend). The following circular applies to Civil Servants who are compelled to attend court as a witness. It basically says that they should be given special leave with pay so it wouldn't affect their annual leave. The HSE is generally considered to be the public service though so this circular may not apply. It would be worth checking with your HR department though to see if it does or if there is a similar (more appropriate) circular in affect.

https://hr.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Circular-31-of-2007-Attendance-of-Civil-Servants-in-Court-as-Witnesses.pdf

GM228

Inconspicuous wrote: »

A court can compel you to attend and in such cases an order will be issued to you. Failure to comply can have serious consequences.

The HSE, may not be able to refuse you going (and certainly not where the court has compelled you to attend). The following circular applies to Civil Servants who are compelled to attend court as a witness. It basically says that they should be given special leave with pay so it wouldn't affect their annual leave. The HSE is generally considered to be the public service though so this circular may not apply. It would be worth checking with your HR department though to see if it does or if there is a similar (more appropriate) circular in affect.

https://hr.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Circular-31-of-2007-Attendance-of-Civil-Servants-in-Court-as-Witnesses.pdf

Same applies to HSE staff:-

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/financial%20regulations/

NFR5, 5.14 onwards.

twowheelsonly

Dav010 wrote: »

Would a judge consider fixing a tap the same as critical patient care? .

.

Would a Judge consider a Pharmacist the same as a Trauma Surgeon ?

Dav010

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Would a Judge consider a Pharmacist the same as a Trauma Surgeon ?

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

The Courts view hearing oral testimony as crucial to their work in society. A one off medical procedure isn't going to over-ride the general importance the Court attaches to witnesses attending Court. Whoever the OP is, he or she isn't so important that the Court will forgo the right to call them to give evidence, especially if the OP is given plenty of time to arrange cover.

twowheelsonly

Dav010 wrote: »

Considering a Hospital Pharmacist prepares the drugs given daily to patients in the Hospital, I would be confident that a Judge would consider a Hospital Pharmacist to be pretty important, would you not?

On the other hand, if you are asking whether a Judge can tell the difference between a Pharmacist and a trauma Surgeon, I doubt there are many who confuse the two professions.

I'd be pretty confident that a Judge would consider a Pharmacist to be replaceable / able to be covered far more so than a trauma surgeon.

I'm not doubting their importance in the slightest (far from it in fact...) but as a lay person myself I would consider that it's not as likely that a pharmacists work would be on an 'emergency' basis and I would also imagine that a lot of their work could be done in advance or covered by other pharmacists for a few hours.

I could, of course, be miles off the mark but a hospital being so reliant on the work of one pharmacist doesn't sound like a great set-up to start with.

This has been sorted. Department of health got involved. Don't have to attend.

Lenar3556

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This has been sorted. Department of health got involved. Don't have to attend.

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Dav010

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Did the op say the case relates to a criminal offence?

Lenar3556

Lenar3556 wrote: »

It would be highly unlikely that the Department of Health (or any government department for that matter) would intervene in a subjudice criminal matter.

40+ years ago maybe.

Most likely a medical negligence case that the SCA have decided to settle?

Peregrinus

Or, the parties to the case (one of whom may be the Dept of Health) have agreed to stipulate the facts that the OP was to testify about, so his testimony is no longer needed.

Could be any number of reasons why the party that wanted to call him as a witness no longer does. But it doesn't affect the question of principle; could they call him as a witness against his will and that of his employer, and could be be compelled to attend? Answer: Yes. There could be some flexibility over when he'd have to attend; that would have to be negotiated. But he couldn't make the problem go away by refusing to negotiate.

beachhead

Cannot believe that a professionsal would not understand the legal requirement to abide by a witness summons.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058197969/medical-case-unable-to-attend-due-to-clinical-responsibilities

Check the letter summoning you. have seen many solicitors letters written advising one to attend court ( in the interest of solicitors client of course) but they read like a court summons but is not.. ie its from a solicitor and not the court or registrar. these you can safely ignore. MAke an enquiry with the registrar of the court to confirm