Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A potential patient

A medical centre

Representatives

Self.

Peter McKenna BL instructed Patrick J Ryan , Ryan & Ryan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00024411-001

18/12/2018

The Complainant in this case is a married man and he and his wife are Romanian nationals.

The Respondent in this case is a medical practice.

This complaint has been submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 of the Equal Status Act of 2000.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 18th December 2018.

The Complainant attended the medical centre on the 12th of October 2018 at 8.35 am. His wife was

booked in for blood tests as part of ongoing visits to this practice in order to establish if they had

any fertility issues. The Complainant has accompanied his wife to this clinic since February 2018.

The appointment was scheduled for 8.45 am. About a week or so prior to this appointment the Complainant’s wife called and asked the reception if her husband could book a set of blood tests also. They had been told before by one of the doctors that he would need some tests at some stage.

The receptionist told the Complainant’s wife that her husband would have to fill in some forms before she can book the blood tests for him.

They arrived a little bit early, they wanted to fill in the form to sign up as patients to enable the Complainant book blood tests. The receptionist on a very hard note, told the Complainant this is not possible as the clinic's board decided not to take any other patients on board and this

situation is to be reviewed in the new year. Although the Complainant made the receptionist aware of the fact that to do blood tests in conjunction with his wife's as this could be a joint problem-

They were told it is still not possible under any circumstance and that this is a decision made

by the clinic.

The Complainant and his wife acknowledged what the receptionist said and went to the waiting area nearby. As they were sitting down, they heard a gentleman arriving in the clinic. At one point he asked the receptionist if there is a chance for him to fill in a form to sign up as a patient. She said

to the person that usually they don't take new people on board until at least new year,

however, quietly, she said she will make an exception and will give him the forms to fill in so

that he can be a patient there as his family was there and also, he is a local to the area. She also

asked him if was with any other GP at the moment in case he wants the medical documents

to be transferred over incurring that he will be taken on as a patient straight away.

The Complainant and his wife noticed that the receptionist was far more friendly and helpful with the other gentleman.

When the Complainant asked if he could have a form to fill in she said no straight away, not possible and also in the opinion of the Complainant in a very abrupt and unfriendly tone.

After the other gentleman left the clinic the Complainant went to the receptionist and asked again for the form. The receptionist informed him that it was not possible as they were not taking more people on board.

The receptionist claimed that she allowed the other gentleman as his family was with

the practice for a longer period than us. She then threw the paper onto the desk and

informed the Complainant that he could complete the form, but she cannot guarantee that he would be taken on as a patient and advised him it was the doctors that approve all applications.

At no stage had the receptionist informed the other person that his file would be up for review by doctors and she did say clearly to the gentleman that they would make an exception in his case.

The wife of the Complainant attended the Medical Centre at approximately 8am on 12th October 2018 for a medical appointment accompanied by her husband, the Complainant. The wife waited in the waiting room while the Complainant approached the receptionist to enquire if he could register to join the practice. The receptionist explained to the Complainant that the patient list was closed at the moment, but this would be reviewed early in the new year. A little time later, another man came into the reception with a form for his child's change of doctor and also to sign his own registration form as he had not completed and signed the registration form when his family had first registered with the practice some time ago.

The Complainant then returned to the reception from the waiting room and questioned the receptionist as to why the other man could join the practice.

Without giving any details the receptionist explained to the Complainant that the family were already patients of the practice. The Complainant was not happy with this answer and began to argue his point and accordingly the receptionist offered him a registration form and suggested he fill it out and the receptionist would give it to the doctor.

The Complainant declined the invitation and accused the receptionist of being discriminatory

against him. The receptionist asked the Complainant not to continue the conversation at reception and she informed him that she would ask his wife’s doctor to phone him later. The Complainant declined this offer, informed the receptionist that he was leaving with his wife and that he had just been discriminated against.

At the time of presentation, the doctor was in surgery examining a patient. When he came out to call in the Complainant’s wife for her appointment she was not there. The receptionist went into the surgery and informed the doctor that the Complainant had requested an appointment for bloods. As the Complainant was not a registered patient she advised him that the practice was not

accepting new patients. The receptionist informed the doctor of what had transpired between herself and the Complainant.

Shortly after this the doctor called the Complainant’s wife and offered an apology. He advised her that the practice would be happy to accept her husband as a patient and he offered her and her husband an appointment there and then. He explained to her that following a meeting of the doctors in the practice, some weeks before, it was decided that they would close their lists temporarily, in order that they would be able to keep offering timely surgery visits unless there were urgent exceptions. The policy was to be reviewed early in the new year.

In the present case, the doctor once again informed the Complainant’s wife that he was quite

happy to see both herself and her husband there and then and that the husband (the Complainant)

would be more than welcome to sign on with them.

The doctor also advised the Complainant’s wife that he would look into what had happened earlier

and that he would call her later that evening. He then spoke with the receptionist and also to the other doctors in the practice and it was agreed that such decisions for taking on new patients would not in future be dealt with in the reception area but would be undertaken by one of the doctors.

The doctor phoned the Complainant’s wife later that evening and the phone was answered by

her husband, the Complainant. Once again, he apologised for their experience and once again informed him that he was more than welcome to join the practice and that he would be happy to have him as a patient and that he hoped they would both remain with the practice. The doctor informed the Complainant that they had decided some weeks previously to close the lists so that they could provide a better service to the existing patients and that the policy was to be reviewed in the new year.

As the Doctor had already informed the Complainant’s wife he also explained to the Complainant that there would always be exceptions and his was one of those. The doctor informed the Complainant that the receptionists were not always privy to the reasons behind some policy decisions.

The doctor informed the Complainant that he could not discuss the case of the other patient without breaching confidentiality and the Complainant informed the doctor that he understood this.

The doctor asked the Complainant to consider his explanation and the offer to him and that he would call him back again. However, the Complainant advised him that neither he nor his wife wished to continue in the practice and that he was going to see his Solicitor in order

to seek legal advice in regard to the matter. The doctor felt that there was nothing more

he could do in the situation.

At the hearing of the complaint it was clearly stated that the practice has a diverse patient list with patients from many different countries, religions and ethnic origins, of many different sexual orientations and of all ages.

I have considered both the oral and written evidence presented and would comment as follows:

1.       The Complainant overheard the receptionist enquire from the other gentleman whether he was with another GP at the moment and yet the Respondent doctor has stated in the ES.2 form that the gentleman had not signed the form when his family had first registered some time ago.

2.       In evidence the receptionist, in relation to the other gentleman and his family, quite clearly stated “they were a whole family" – does this imply that the Complainant and his wife were not a whole family?

I have also considered the Labour Court decision in Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64 wherein the Labour Court stated that ‘mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn’.

The Complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground.

In relation to the family status ground I believe there is a prima facie case and the burden of proof has not been discharged by the Respondent. The complaint of discrimination on the ground of family status is well found and I find in favour of the Complainant.

The Respondent is ordered to compensate the Complainant in the sum of €1,000.

As outlined above.

Equal Status Act 2000.