Hospital dispute could last for years, says judge

A High Court judge yesterday urged lawyers to explore whether there was a more conciliatory way of resolving the situation within the surgical department at Cavan General Hospital. Otherwise, he was concerned it could go on "for years".

Mr Justice Kearns made the suggestion just two hours after the opening of proceedings taken by a consultant surgeon, Dr Pawan K. Rajpal, in which he is challenging his suspension without pay from the hospital following complaints against him by another surgeon, Dr William P. Joyce, who is also suspended.

The judge said he was recommending very strongly that the parties consider whether another route, through conciliation and dialogue, could be taken because of the extensive damaging aspects of the matter for the two surgeons, the NEHB, the Department of Health, the hospital, patients and public.

Lawyers for all parties agreed to hold talks. However, an hour later, Mr Patrick Hanratty SC, for Dr Rajpal, said the parties had reached an impasse and the case must proceed.

When opening Dr Rajpal's action, Mr Hanratty said it arose from a "maelstrom" in Cavan General Hospital which had been going on for some time. Dr Rajpal, Dr Joyce, and a Dr Noel McMurray were all consultant surgeons.

In 2002, four consultant anaesthetists had expressed concerns regarding Dr Joyce and he was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. Dr Joyce returned to the hospital in December 2002 on conditions, including participation in an aggression management course.

In January 2003, Dr Rajpal and Dr McMurray had attended a meeting with the CEO, Mr Robinson, and Mr Finbar Fitzpatrick, secretary general of the Irish Hospital Consultants Association. At that meeting, both surgeons had expressed concerns about certain aspects of Dr Joyce's clinical practice.

Mr Robinson had written to Dr Joyce, who retaliated with a series of serious allegations against Dr Rajpal.

On August 18th, 2003, Mr Robinson had written saying he had decided there was substance to some of the allegations against Dr Rajpal, who was suspended without pay, Mr Hanratty said. Dr Joyce was also suspended.

Dr Rajpal was contending that Mr Robinson had fundamentally misconstrued his functions under the Health Acts 1970. Mr Robinson appeared to be saying that he was entitled to propose Dr Rajpal's removal for misconduct without having himself made a decision whether there was misconduct. This was a case of putting the cart before the horse. It was Dr Rajpal's case that the CEO had not formulated any charges or complaints for consideration of whether Dr Rajpal was guilty of misconduct. In opposing the action, Mr Robinson and the NEHB deny the claims.