Paramedic takes High Court action against HSE over stalled return to work

A paramedic who was suspended from work more than four years ago is seeking a High Court order compelling the Health Service Executive to immediately reinstate him to his job.

The action has been brought by David Walker, an advanced paramedic, who in 2018 was placed on administrative leave following an allegation that he and a colleague disengaged from an emergency call without authorisation or approval. Arising out of the allegation, he was suspended and placed on paid administrative leave by the HSE.

Following an investigation, which the Co Cork-based Mr Walker claims was the subject of a lengthy delay, the HSE made findings against him.

He was summarily dismissed from his job in May 2020 by the HSE for alleged misconduct. He immediately appealed that decision to the HSE’s Disciplinary Appeals Committee (DAC), which early last year overturned that decision.

Darragh Ó Sé: Changing grades hasn’t worked out - the GAA needs to go back to U-18 and U-21

---

Michael McDowell: Irish ‘sneaking regarders’ of Trump are naive about the threat he poses to democracy

---

Jacques Nienaber says Leinster got it wrong in three areas against Toulouse

---

Martin Wolf: Falling fertility rates are one of the biggest challenges facing our world

---

It said the sanction was “too harsh given the circumstances” and when the length of his service as a paramedic was taken into consideration. It also held that the delay in processing the investigation was unwarranted, unjustified and had damaged Mr Walker’s reputation. The DAC further held that Mr Walker’s suspension was invoked unlawfully and that the HSE had failed in its duty to him to carry out an investigation expeditiously.

The DAC recommended that he be demoted in grade from advanced paramedic to emergency medical technician with immediate effect, that his duties be altered accordingly and that the matter be reviewed in 12 months’ time by an independent evaluator.

However, Mr Walker who fully accepts the DAC’s findings, claims the HSE has failed to implement its recommendations. He claims the HSE only arranged a back-to-work meeting with him last December, eight months after the DAC issued its findings. He also claims that his back-to-work date was fixed by the HSE as December of this year, which he alleges is contrary to the DAC’s findings.

Willing and available

He claims he had a legitimate expectation that he would be allowed to return to work in March, some 12 months after the DAC issued its recommendation. He is willing and available for work, but when he presented at his place of employment he was told to go home.

However, the HSE informed him in several letters in March that he could not return to work without having completed the training programmes for the position he was demoted from. Mr Walker claims that he has been unable to attend these courses due to factors including that he was not being given enough time to make arrangements so he could attend a training course last December.

Another training programme he was asked to go on only dealt with basic skills and was not suitable, he claims. The HSE, he claims, has blocked, delayed and impeded his efforts to return to work.

As a result, he has brought High Court proceedings against the HSE over its refusal to implement the DAC’s recommendations. He says that he is at a complete loss as to why the recommendations have not been carried out.

In his judicial review action against the HSE, Mr Walker, of Grange Manor, Ovens, Co Cork, represented by Martin Hayden SC, seeks various orders and declarations including an order requiring the respondent to immediately reinstate him to his position. He also seeks a declaration that the HSE has acted in breach of contract against him, and that the HSE’s failure to execute the DAC’s recommendations amounts to breaches of his constitutional rights to fair procedures, to earn a livelihood, and his right to a good name and reputation.

The matter came before Mr Justice Anthony Barr, who on an ex-parte basis, granted the applicant permission to bring his challenge. The matter will return before the court in October.