The Northern Area Health Board has asked the High Court to stop a coroner embarking on what the board claims is a wide-ranging inquiry into the death of a patient at St Ita's Hospital, Portrane, Co Dublin.
Mrs Carmel Kitching, of Artane, Dublin, a daughter of the dead woman - Mrs Rosaleen O'Reilly (67) - had expressed concerns about the cause of her mother's death to the Dublin County Coroner, Dr Kieran Geraghty. He decided to hold an inquest to allay "rumours and suspicions having regard to the concerns expressed" by Mrs Kitching. The coroner said he was not inquiring into the standard of care at St Ita's but "merely seeking to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of Rosaleen O'Reilly".
An inquest into Mrs O'Reilly's death began on October 17th, 2000, and adjourned because the evidence of a nurse was not available. Following the adjournment, the board applied to the High Court for orders prohibiting the coroner from resuming the inquest.
The court was told Mrs O'Reilly suffered from Alzheimer's disease and was admitted to St Ita's on January 18th, 2000, for "respite care". She died on February 25th, 2000. A pathologist who carried out a post-mortem concluded she died of "acute bronchopneumonia".
During the inquest, a second statement prepared by Mrs Kitching focused on the physical condition of the hospital, the conduct of staff members and her concerns at a perceived lack of care received by her mother in the hospital, the board said.
It claimed Section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 confined an inquest to the identity of the dead person and how, when and where the death occurred. Those answers were ascertainable from the medical staff who treated Mrs O'Reilly and from Dr Eamonn Leen, the consultant pathologist, the board claimed. In an affidavit, the coroner, Dr Geraghty, denied he was involved in inquiring into the standard of care at the hospital. Because there were allegations of lack of care, he was required to examine them and to establish the circumstances surrounding Mrs O'Reilly's death. He had issued no directives nor indicated anything that could lead either the jury or board to believe he was investigating criminal or civil liability matters. It became apparent to him throughout the inquest that, had the board co-operated, the jury were most likely to return a verdict in accordance with the pathology reports.
The hearing before Mr Justice Kelly continues today.