High Court: Army doctor who told patient she was sitting on “health bomb” is sanctioned

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 624
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering an ex tempore judgment for the High Court in July, Mr Justice David Barniville found that the decision of the Medical Council and its Fitness to Practice Committee was unimpeachable and confirmed the decision to attach conditions to the respondent doctor’s registration.

Background

On 13 May 2021, a complaint was made to the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) of the applicant alleging that during a medical consultation, the respondent doctor stated that the complainant was “sitting on a bomb, a health bomb” and that there was “almost a 90 per cent chance” that she had cancer.

Both the complainant and the respondent, a Polish national, were serving in the Irish Defence Forces at the relevant time, and were deployed to a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. 

The complainant alleged had made an appointment with the respondent to discuss the fact that her medical status had been downgraded following the entry of an incorrect diagnosis of cancer on her medical records. 

Notwithstanding that the entry had been corrected prior to her consultation with the respondent, the complainant and an officer accompanying her at the consultation were satisfied that the complainant had been told by the respondent that she had cancer.

On 20 April 2022, the PPC formed the opinion that further action was warranted in relation to those complaints on grounds of alleged professional misconduct and/or poor professional performance.

A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the respondent in June 2025 alleging that the respondent’s comments were inappropriate and not supported by medical evidence. The allegations were pursued on the basis of poor professional performance only.

Inquiry and Report

An inquiry took place in the respondent’s absence in September 2025, with the Fitness to Practise Committee finding that the allegations against the respondent were proven beyond reasonable doubt and amounted to poor professional performance. 

The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s words were inaccurate and that he should have familiarised himself with the complainant’s up to date medical records before meeting her.

The Committee was further satisfied that the respondent’s use of language was inappropriate and found it hard to imagine that a doctor would find it appropriate to deliver a cancer diagnosis using the words “health bomb” and without establishing that the information given was accurate.

Concluding that the respondent had not demonstrated any skill in his communication with the complainant, the Committee acknowledged that while the conduct comprised a single incident, it was a very serious and significant failure which caused distress to the complainant and to her colleague.

In light of those findings and the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case, and in circumstances where the respondent had since retired to Poland but remained on the general division of the Irish medical register, it recommended a sanction of censure and the attachment of a condition to the respondent’s registration that he complete an approved course in advanced communication skills within three months if he returned to Ireland.

The respondent was also required, inter alia, to inform the applicant within 7 days of his return to Ireland to resume practice as a registered GP, to present evidence of successful completion of the course to the applicant along with reporting key learning to the Monitoring Committee of the applicant, to agree to any visit, inspection or report deemed appropriate by the applicant to confirm such compliance and to provide evidence of compliance with the conditions at the applicant’s request.

The applicant, having determined that the recommended sanction was appropriate, applied to the High Court for confirmation of its decision pursuant to s.76 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.

The High Court

The President of the High Court at the outset of his judgment noted that pursuant to s.76(3) of the 2007 Act, the court was required to confirm the decision of the Medical Council unless there was “good reason” not to do so.

Mr Justice Barniville highlighted that whilst confirmation by the High Court is required in relation to the attachment of the conditions, it is not required in respect of censure.

The court confirmed its agreement with the test set out in the cases of Medical Council v M.A.G.A [2016] IEHC 779, Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401 and Teaching Council v S.R [2018] IEHC 582, which provides that the court will be required to confirm the decision in the absence of a procedural impropriety or irregularity, a failure to observe natural and constitutional justice or a serious and significant error, or unless the court is satisfied that the decision is one that no reasonable regulatory body could take on the basis of the evidence before it.

Being satisfied that the approach taken by the applicant and the Committee was unimpeachable, Mr Justice Barniville opined, “this was a decision which was entirely appropriate, proper and proportionate, and one which complied with all of the relevant legal principles applicable to sanctioning in professional disciplinary cases.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the applicant’s decision to attach conditions to the retention of the respondent’s registration in accordance with s.71(1)(c) of the 2007 Act.

Medical Council v Adam Lagun [2026] IEHC 624