Soft tissue injury from assault awarded; pre-existing spinal degeneration excluded from future loss of earnings claim.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 652

[Record No. 2022/140SP]

IN THE MATTER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

(COMPENSATION) ACTS, 1941 & 1945

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GARDA SINÉAD DOYLE

BETWEEN

SINÉAD DOYLE

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Reynolds delivered on the 31st day of October 2025.

Introduction.

1. The applicant in this case joined An Garda Síochána in 2006. In December 2011, she was subjected to a violent assault maliciously inflicted on her in the course of her duties. The applicant sustained physical and psychological injuries and was duly authorised by the respondent to bring the within application for compensation pursuant to the above legislation. Her application includes a claim for loss of earnings and medical expenses, to date and into the future.

2. The core issue in dispute in these proceedings is whether her injuries caused subsequent degenerative changes to the cervical spine (and the need for surgical intervention in 2018) or whether the applicant had pre-existing underlying degenerative changes in her cervical spine which may have been rendered symptomatic by the assault.

The injuries

3. The applicant attended her General Practitioner, Dr. Patrick Duggan, six days after the assault and complained of pain in the right side of her neck with associated headaches. Clinical examination revealed a full range of movement but with tenderness at the extremes. The applicant was advised to rest and prescribed anti-inflammatory medication. X- rays were later reported as normal.

4. When reviewed two weeks later, the applicant advised that she was "almost painfree". Her GP opined as follows: - “In conclusion Sinéad suffered what appears to have been a relatively mild injury to the soft tissues in her neck.

She was extremely traumatised after the event.

However, she applied herself very well to a home rehabilitation programme and at the time of last consultation seemed to be well. I would be optimistic re the future but flares of these kind of injuries cannot be excluded.”

5. The applicant was out of work for ten days after the assault followed by a brief period on light duties before returning to full duties. In February 2013, she suffered a flareup of her symptoms and was out of work for a further four days. When examined by Dr John Walsh, Specialist Occupational Physician in the office of the Chief Medical Officer (“CMO”) on 18 April 2013, he noted as follows: -

(a) The applicant remained in the optimal medical fitness category and was working full normal duties.

(b) She reported occasional symptoms of pain in the left side of her lower neck associated with cold weather.

(c) She denied having any post-traumatic psychological injury and had not availed of any treatment since the assault. Dr Walsh opined that the applicant had made a full functional recovery from her injuries with conservative treatment and that her psychological upset had been short lived.

Subsequent medical treatment

6. The applicant suffered from a significant onset of symptoms in her neck in late 2015 and commenced physiotherapy treatment. An MRI of her cervical spine carried out on 23 November 2015 revealed degenerative changes at C/5, C5/6, C6/7 with a fairly large left posterolateral and central protrusion impinging on the thecal sack on the left side and a left C6/7 exit foramen with considerable posterior annular bulging centrally at C5/6 and right posterior central at C/5. In view of the findings, the applicant was referred by her GP to Mr Michael Kelleher, Consultant Neurosurgeon, and was advised to cease all front-line duties at this time.

7. The applicant underwent multiple facet joint and steroid injections between 2016 and 2017. She required a discectomy and fusion of the C5/6 and C6/7 in early in 2018, which was largely successful in alleviating her symptoms. The applicant’s evidence.

8. The applicant gave evidence of the violent assault perpetrated on her as she was arresting a public order suspect. Her assailant placed her in a headlock as she tried to apprehend him. She developed pain in her neck the following day and attended her GP days later. She was out of work due to her injuries from the 9th to 19 December 2011 but was anxious to return thereafter to alleviate the burden on her colleagues, given the time of year.

9. The applicant stated that she suffered considerable pain and discomfort in her neck requiring painkillers and physiotherapy treatment. Her evidence was that she never had a pain-free period after the assault and that her pain was aggravated when wearing her protective vest at work. As a result, she avoided going back out on patrol and remained primarily on desk duties.

10. The applicant stated that by June 2012, she became her mother's primary carer as she was suffering from a terminal illness and struggled to keep a work/home life balance. In February 2013, the applicant stated that she suffered a significant flareup of symptoms in her She returned to her GP and was prescribed painkillers and referred for physiotherapy. Thereafter she self-managed her symptoms. However, by November 2015 she was suffering from considerable pain and attended Dr John Redmond, General Practitioner. In addition to her neck pain, she stated she was also suffering from pins and needles radiating down her forearm. Dr Redmond referred her for neurosurgical review to Mr. Michael Kelleher, Consultant Neurosurgeon.

11. Mr. Kelleher recommended a treatment plan with facet joint injections, steroid injections and neck strengthening exercises. Due to the nature of her symptoms, she was placed on permanent light duties at work. Unfortunately, the relief obtained from the various treatments was short lived. The applicant stated her symptoms returned and she ultimately required a discectomy which was carried out by Mr Kelleher in April 2018.

12. She stated that post-surgery the period of recuperation was lengthy and she was off work. She developed significant psychological symptoms and flashbacks to the assault. She attended with Fiona Weldon, Psychologist who advised her about a programme of rehabilitation.

13. In November 2018, she was informed by the Chief Medical Officer that she was only suitable for work two days a week. Some weeks later she was advised that given her significant neck surgery she was not considered fit for frontline policing duties. The applicant stated that since returning to work in late 2018 she continued to experience nightmares and flashbacks to the assault.

14. In relation to the impact on her career, the applicant stated that she had applied for promotion to sergeant and had sat her sergeant’s exam in April 2011. Her evidence was that in the intervening years she has been unable to pursue this promotion opportunity as if successful, she would have to go back to frontline duties post promotion for one year (in circumstances where this is a mandatory requirement). She stated that due to her neck symptoms she would have been unable for such duties and that consequentially she has been deprived of the opportunity to pursue her ambition to achieve the rank of sergeant and/or other promotional opportunities. However, in 2021, she was successful in getting a promotion to the rank of detective.

Evidence of Michael Kelleher, Consultant Neurosurgeon

15. The court had the benefit of two reports from Mr Kelleher, dated 22 August 2016 and

25 October 2018, together with evidence viva voce by way of video link. Mr Kelleher stated that the applicant was referred to him by her GP and was first seen by him in January 2016. She recounted a history of assault in 2011 with resulting neck pain. She complained at the time of review of neck pain radiating into both shoulders and down her left arm into her fingers. Clinical examination revealed restrictions in all cervical movements. Mr Kelleher reviewed the MRI findings and opined that the applicant had evidence of multilevel cervical spondylosis with disc osteophytes present at three levels in her neck.

16. He further stated as follows: “It is not possible to state that the assault was the sole cause of the degenerative changes that are evident. The reason I make that statement is because degenerative changes such as ones seen on the MRI of Sinéad Doyle can occur as a natural ageing in the cervical spine and can occur in the absence of any trauma. Regardless, one can state with certainty is that Sinéad Doyle was rendered symptomatic as a consequence of the assault.”

17. Mr Kelleher prescribed a treatment plan with a combination of steroid injections, facet joint injections and neck strengthening exercises. Upon review in May 2016, the applicant reported a good improvement in her symptoms following facet injections. However, that benefit only lasted until February 2017 and in March she reported suffering a significant flareup with pain in her neck radiating to her left shoulder. Upon further clinical follow-up in April 2018 the applicant complained of significant left sided neck pain radiating into her left shoulder, arm, and hand. She described significant sleep disturbance and was suffering from sleep deprivation. Mr Kelleher recommended a C5/6 C6/7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This was performed on 30 April 2018. She reported to him that her symptoms had improved by 80% post-surgery and the paraesthesia in her upper limb was gone. He noted that she had returned to work and was doing light duties.

18. In terms of long-term prognosis, Mr Kelleher stated as follows: - “I would expect that her neck pain will improve and dissipate with physiotherapy and the passage of time. I do not think that Sinéad Doyle will be left with any long-term complications as a result of the injury.”

19. He accepted that she suffered a further flareup of her symptoms in 2022 but stated that this was not surprising, given the underlying degenerative changes present. He further stated that one in ten patients who undergo fusion surgery get accelerated degenerative changes post-surgery.

20. On cross-examination, Mr Kelleher accepted that the opinion in his first report in 2016 was formed without sight of Dr Duggan’s report of 22 December 2011. In addition, he accepted that he had not seen Dr Walsh’s report of 18 April 2013.

21. Mr Kelleher disagreed with the respondent’s contention that the applicant had sustained a minor soft tissue injury to the cervical spine in the assault. However, he did accept that underlying degenerative changes can result in the spontaneous onset of symptoms.

Evidence of Dr Pat O’Neill

22. The court had the benefit of three reports from Dr O'Neill dated 13 February 2018, 26 January 2020, and 7 November 2023 together with his oral evidence. At the outset Dr O’Neill confirmed that he had access to all the applicant's medical records including reports from Dr Redmond, Dr Sheehy, and Mr Kelleher when he first carried out an examination of the plaintiff in February 2018. He confirmed that he also had access to her diagnostic imaging including x-rays and the early reports from the applicant’s GP, Dr Duggan, (which failed to document significant symptoms) and also Dr Walsh’s report in 2013 (recording that the applicant had remained in the optimal medical fitness category and was working full normal duties).

23. He opined that the applicant did not sustain a significant structural injury to the cervical spine arising from the assault. In his view, the injury was more likely to be a soft tissue strain, based on those early reports. He disagreed with Mr Kelleher’s findings that the trauma resulting from the assault was the triggering event giving rise to the subsequent need for treatment and surgery.

24. In his opinion: “…She apparently had become essentially symptom-free at review on 22 December 2011 at or about some two to three weeks after sustaining the injuries on 4 December 2011, apart from some residual tenderness at the extremes of left lateral rotation movements of the cervical spine of her neck.”

"The delayed onset of subjective symptoms and objective findings on clinical examination and updated diagnostic imaging findings on magnetic resonance or imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine were not consistent with having directly sustained an acute cervical intervertebral disc protrusion and left-sided cervical radiculopathy in the occupational injury incident on 4 December 2011 based on contemporaneous correlation.”

Conflicting medical opinions on causation

25. Whilst the court had the benefit of numerous medical reports, the core issue to be resolved centred on the conflicting evidence of Mr Kelleher and Dr O'Neill.

26. Mr Kelleher's initial opinion was that the applicant's neck condition was “rendered symptomatic as a consequence of the assault.” However, that opinion was formed in 2016, more than four and a half years after the assault and in the absence of any consideration of the plaintiff’s symptoms and treatment in the intervening period, as documented in contemporaneous medical reports. Whilst Mr Kelleher records her difficulties at work including issues with wearing a stab vest and getting in and out of vehicles, it is clear that such issues were of relatively recent origin in circumstances where in April 2013 (almost 18 months post assault) it was noted by the CMO that the applicant remained in the optimal medical fitness category and was working full duties. It was further noted that she had sustained a soft tissue injury in the assault which had resolved with conservative treatment. Mr Kelleher further accepted in evidence that the applicant's degenerative changes could have resulted in the spontaneous onset of symptoms, an opinion which was shared by Dr Pat O'Neill.

27. In addition to having sight of all the relevant medical reports, Dr O'Neill reviewed the radiological imaging and opined: “The pre-existent underlying discogenic degeneration in the cervical spine of her neck, not confirmed on MRI of the cervical spine until November 2015, until almost four years after sustaining the injury in the occupational incident on 4 December 2011, would have predisposed to an increased propensity and/or potential risk of accelerated progression and deterioration of the degenerative disc disease and ultimate acute rupture, protrusion and deterioration of the degenerative cervical intervertebral disc in the intervertebral spine of her neck”.

28. In seeking to resolve this conflict, I must also take account of the applicant’s evidence of intermittent symptoms and flareups since the time of the assault. It is common case that she was asymptomatic prior to December 2011 and had an exemplary work record.

29. However, I cannot ignore the other personal difficulties that formed part of the evidence in this case and the fact that she was unable to pursue promotional prospects at a time when she was at optimal fitness levels and asymptomatic.

30. In addition, I am mindful that a period of almost fourteen years has elapsed since the assault occurred and that the contemporaneous reports documenting the applicant’s symptoms and complaints are more likely to be more accurate than the applicant’s recollection at this remove. This is by no means a criticism of the applicant’s testimony as it is well recognised that memories become less dependable over time.

31. On balance, therefore, I am satisfied that I must accept the medical opinion of Dr Pat O'Neill (given that he carried out an in-depth analysis of the applicant's medical history and, in particular, the contemporaneous recording of her symptoms, treatment and prognosis) that the injuries sustained by the applicant were soft tissue in nature.

32. The other outstanding issue on causation is the extent of the psychological trauma suffered by the applicant arising from the assault. Whilst the applicant reported psychological symptoms when she first presented to her GP, it was noted shortly thereafter that they had resolved without any medical intervention.

Conclusions

33. It follows from the foregoing findings on the medical evidence that the claim for loss of promotion must fail. In any event, all promotions are based on success in a competitive process with no guaranteed outcomes. Given the applicant’s underlying degenerative spinal condition, she was unlikely to ever return to front line duties, ruling out the likelihood of any promotion to sergeant.

34. Further, the substantive claim for special damages must also fail save and except for the figures agreed (as set out in the correspondence from the CSSO dated 24 March 2025).

Summary

35. I am satisfied from the evidence that the applicant sustained a soft tissue injury as a result of the assault together with minor psychological trauma and upset. This was clearly a violent assault and undoubtedly very frightening for the applicant at the time. Her physical injuries were treated conservatively, and she made a good recovery within a brief period, albeit with intermittent flare ups for approximately eighteen months thereafter. She reported to her treating physician that her psychological symptoms settled within weeks of the incident.

36. Regarding the later onset of symptoms some years after the assault, the evidence in my view does not establish a causal link with the injuries sustained in the assault.

37. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the appropriate award for compensation is €25,000.00. The agreed specials amount to the sum of €402.41, giving a total of €25,402.41.