A legal dispute between a nurse and the Eastern Regional Health Authority has been "amicably resolved", the High Court was told yesterday.
The dispute arose after the nurse, Ms Mary Bateman, was suspended for two weeks in June 1998 by the board of management of a Dublin nursing home following an alleged assault on an elderly patient there.
Announcing the settlement yesterday, Mr Peter Finlay SC, for the ERHA, said his client "fully accepted" the findings of an inquiry by An Bord Altranais into matters arising at St Patrick's Nursing Home, Baldoyle, in 1998. That inquiry had found Ms Bateman had no case to answer arising from the alleged assault at the home on the night of May 31st/June 1st, 1998.
Mr Finlay said Ms Bateman was a registered nurse who had worked for the Eastern Health Board and, until 1998, at St Patrick's nursing home (a nursing home for retired Christian Brothers). He said his client considered she was eligible to apply for any position for which she may be suitably qualified. In that regard, his side would like to wish her well and the Northern Area Health Board, a board within the ERHA region, would give her a letter in the terms he had just outlined to the court.
Mr Turlough O'Donnell SC, for Ms Bateman, thanked Mr Justice Murphy for the time allocated to the sides to reach a resolution.
Mr Justice Murphy said he was glad the "clearly difficult" case was settled and also wished Ms Bateman well. He ordered the proceedings be struck out.
In her action against the ERHA, Ms Bateman, of Castle Avenue, Swords, Co Dublin, had challenged the refusal of the authority to give her a letter stating she is a nurse in good standing.
It was claimed that bruising was noted on the body of an elderly brother on June 3rd, 1998, and that he had claimed he was hit with his "walking stick". The brother later declined to make a formal complaint and had not named any person as responsible for it.
Mr Justice Murphy heard that the board of management of the nursing home later conducted inquiries into the matter, found Ms Bateman guilty of gross misconduct and suspended Ms Bateman and another person for two weeks without pay. It also decided that Ms Bateman was no longer to be permitted work on the night shift but could work on a day shift on a supervised basis.
Ms Bateman had objected to these conditions through her union, said she could not work under those because of her personal circumstances, and had resigned. She later took a case for unfair dismissal and secured a financial award of €16,000.
In opposing the case, the ERHA said it was not the practice or policy of health boards to provide letters or certificates of the sort requested by Ms Bateman. It said the EHB had made no allegations to An Bord Altranais and had placed no restriction on Ms Bateman's right to earn a livelihood.
The termination of her employment was brought about by her resignation on terms that were negotiated on her behalf and accepted by her and in which negotiations the EHB had no involvement, it was stated.
