An attempt by five private hospitals for an injunction restraining the VHI from implementing its revised payment scheme for hospitals failed in the High Court yesterday.
The hospitals had sought an interlocutory injunction pending a full trial of an action against the VHI, which is now expected to start in late June or early July. The proceedings challenge the new VHI payments scheme introduced on April 2nd last.
The case was taken by two Dublin hospitals, St Joseph's, Raheny, and Mount Carmel, Churchtown, and by Renmore Hospital, Clane, Co Kildare; Galvia Hospital, Renmore, Co Galway; and St Joseph's Hospital, Sligo.
Mr Justice Quirke said he was satisfied the hospitals had raised bona-fide questions for determination at the trial of the action. He also said that if they succeeded at the trial in establishing their right to a permanent injunction, they could be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
The questions raised included whether in its dealings with the plaintiffs the VHI had abused its position of dominance within the market for medical insurance contrary to the Competition Act and Article 86 of the EEC Treaty.
They also included questions as to whether the VHI occupied a position of dominance within the market of the provision of medical services and if so whether it abused that position; and whether the VHI had abused its dominant position by imposing unfair prices and trading conditions.
Mr Justice Quirke said it had been contended by the plaintiffs that they could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages because most, perhaps all, of their hospitals were non-profitmaking, and while the Sligo hospital had returned a modest surplus last year at least one hospital, Mount Carmel, had sustained losses for several years.
Evidence was adduced to the intent that the application of the new remuneration levels would have the effect of forcing all the plaintiffs to trade at a loss, causing them irreparable harm.
It had been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they faced imminent bankruptcy which would result in closure of some or all the hospitals in the near future.
It was contended that, having regard to the nature and character of the hospitals concerned and their services, closure in such circumstances would be final and irreparable and would not be capable of being remedied by a subsequent damages award.
VHI contended that even if the plaintiffs succeeded at the trial in establishing their right to a permanent injunction, they would be adequately compensated.
The judge said he was satisfied that, if the plaintiffs were ultimately successful in establishing their right to a permanent injunction, it would be possible for the court to measure appropriate damages recoverable for any loss they would have sustained because of the new scheme from the date of implementation to the date of trial.