Supreme Court finds in favour of surgeon

A surgeon’s “slip of the pen” should not have been the basis for him being subjected to the “extremely threatening ordeal” of a public inquiry by the Medical Council, the Supreme Court has said.

The five-judge court unanimously upheld the High Court’s rejection of a Council inquiry’s finding that distinguished paediatric surgeon Professor Martin Corbally should receive an admonishment over “a once-off error”.

It related to a handwritten description of a tongue tie surgical procedure on a two-year-old girl in 2010 in Crumlin Hospital which led to a finding of poor professional performance (PPP) against the doctor.

The court said the law requires that for a medical professional to have to undergo a public inquiry, a threshold of “seriousness” must be met.

It was not fair or just that someone like Prof Corbally was subjected to such an inquiry, with extensive publicity, some of which lacked fairness and moderation, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said.

It was not an adequate vindication of his constitutional right to his good name and was not what the Oireachtas expressed when it passed the Medical Practitioner’s Act 2007, under which the inquiry was held, he said.

The girl in the case required surgery on her upper lip, an “upper labial frenulum” procedure, as her top lip was catching, causing an ulcer and contributing to a gap in front of her teeth.

However, an incorrect tongue tie procedure was carried out by another doctor to whom Prof Corbally delegated the task after he was called to emergency surgery. Prof Corbally carried out corrective surgery shortly afterwards and the child made a full recovery.

The child’s parents complained to the Medical Council and a Fitness to Practice (FtPC) inquiry made a finding of “poor professional performance” (PPP) against Prof Corbally, which he strongly contested.

He took proceedings in the High Court which found that inaccurate wording on initial handwritten examination notes by Prof Corbally was not causative of the subsequent damage.

The council appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, asking it to define the proper meaning PPP in the 2007 Act.

Upholding the High Court decision yesterday, Mr Justice Hardiman said the council conceded during the appeal that to establish PPP it was necessary to prove behaviour which fell “seriously” short of the standard expected and that it could not meet that test.

However, the council denied the legislation required any seriousness threshold to be met, he said.

Mr Justice Hardiman said for there have to have been a finding of PPP, there must have been reason to believe that what can be proved against him was something of a serious nature.