Gynaecologist on leave since 2019 entitled to be reinstated

Consultant placed on administrative leave following concerns raised by nursing staff  in connection with five patients who attended for hysteroscopy procedures

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a consultant gynaecologist who has been on administrative leave from his role since August 2019 is entitled to an order terminating his suspension and reinstating him with immediate effect. Picture: iStock

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a consultant gynaecologist who has been on administrative leave from his role since August 2019 is entitled to an order terminating his suspension and reinstating him with immediate effect.

Ray O’Sullivan was placed on administrative leave from his position at St Luke’s Hospital in Kilkenny on full pay in August 2019.

It followed concerns raised by nursing staff at the hospital in connection with five patients who attended St Luke’s for hysteroscopy procedures.

It was alleged that unauthorised and unapproved actions and procedures for research were conducted on the patients without their knowledge.

He was informed in August 2019 by the chief executive of the HSE, Paul Reid, that he was being placed on administrative leave.

In the 61-page judgment by the three-judge Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan noted that Prof O’Sullivan had not informed any of the relevant hospital authorities of his intention to undertake the feasibility study on the patients.

The judgement added: “Further, the equipment used by Professor O’Sullivan was not hospital equipment but rather equipment personally purchased by him from his own funds, albeit it from a recognised supplier. None of the results of the study were recorded on the patients’ charts.” 

A recommendation to have Prof O’Sullivan dismissed was referred by the HSE to the S.24 committee established by the minister for health, which will decide if Prof O’Sullivan is to be dismissed or not.

The Court of Appeal has upheld the findings of the High Court last year that the HSE was entitled to recommend that Prof O'Sullivan be dismissed from his job.

However, Mr Justice Noonan said: “I am quite satisfied, for the reasons I have explained, that Professor O’Sullivan is entitled to an order of mandamus terminating his suspension and reinstating him with immediate effect.” 

In his conclusion, Mr Justice Noonan said he is satisfied that the proper course “is for the disciplinary process before the committee to proceed and continue to conclusion”.

He also said that a finding by Mr Reid of misconduct on the part of Prof O’Sullivan is not binding on the committee in any way, and that the committee “is entirely free to reach its own conclusions” on the issue.

He added: “Taking an overview of the matter, it seems to me that Professor O’Sullivan has prevailed on the merits of the appeal and my provisional view therefore is that he should be entitled to his costs both in this court and the High Court. If the HSE wishes to contend for an alternative form of order, it will have 14 days from the date of this judgment to apply to the Court of Appeal Office for a short supplemental hearing on the issue of costs. If such hearing is requested and does not result in an order different from that proposed, the HSE may be additionally responsible for the costs of the supplemental hearing. In default of such application, the order proposed will be made.”