HSE CEO claims decision to put UHL clinical director on administrative leave 'not taken lightly'
It was the second day of the injunction application by Professor Brian Lenehan who is seeking an injunction over a HSE decision a number of months ago to put him on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. File photo: Collins Courts
HSE CEO Bernard Gloster has said he did not take the decision lightly to put the clinical director of University Hospital Limerick (UHL) on administrative leave, the High Court has heard.
Mr Gloster, who put the UHL clinical director Professor Brian Lenehan on administrative leave pending an investigation for alleged serious misconduct relating to circumstances surrounding the death of 16-year-old Aoife Johnston two years ago, the court heard accepts the significant impact of his decision.
It was the second day of the injunction application by Professor Brian Lenehan who is seeking an injunction over a HSE decision a number of months ago to put him on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.
Professor Lenehan denies any misconduct and says the decision was reached without any actual conduct on his part having been identified. It was in breach of his contract and contrary to ordinary rationality and logic such as to be void in law and he wants to be reinstated as UHL clinical director.
The HSE disputes the decision is unlawful. Prof. Lenehan has been told he can, pending the investigation, return to working as an orthopaedic surgeon.
The 16-year-old Leaving Cert student from Shannon, Co Clare, Aoife Johnston died on December 19, 2022, from meningitis two days after presenting at the UHL emergency department with symptoms of suspected sepsis and during which her condition worsened. It later emerged she was left for more than 13 hours without antibiotics.
Her family this year settled High Court actions against the HSE over her death.
In a submission to the High Court on Wednesday, Lorna Lynch SC for Professor Lenehan said it was a very serious matter and could involve potential significant reputational damage for the consultant.
She said in his affidavit to the court Mr Gloster accepts the significant impact of the decision to put Professor Lenehan on administrative leave and said he did not take it lightly. Mr Gloster also contended that to set aside the decision would have a “profound impact”.
Counsel submitted that the Lenehan side would say that the decision is one no reasonable decision maker would come to and there was “a fundamental lack of clarity“ in relation to the decision-making process.
Counsel pointed out it was not a case where there was a breakdown of a working relationship. She said it could involve reputational damage and noted it is a decision pending investigation and the administrative leave is “open ended”. The case before Ms Justice Siobhan Stack continues.
