The IRB/PIAB Medical Examination (Section 24) in Irish Personal Injury Claims

What the Section 24 Examination Is

Section 24 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 gives the Injuries Resolution Board a power to request a claimant to attend a medical examination the Board arranges. It is the statutory basis for the "independent" examination that many claimants in Irish personal injury claims encounter once their claim is being assessed. The provision is short, and its wording matters, because what it grants is narrower than most descriptions suggest.

The operative words are a "request" and a power to "arrange", not an order. Section 24(2) of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 provides:

"The request mentioned in subsection (1) is a request of the claimant to submit himself or herself to a medical examination which the Board may arrange to be carried out in relation to the claimant by one or more medical practitioners."

Section 24(2), Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (irishstatutebook.ie)

Two points follow from that wording. The examination is something the Board may arrange, so it is discretionary rather than automatic. And it is directed at the claimant alone; the Board does not assess liability, so the examination concerns the nature, extent and prognosis of the injuries, never how the accident happened. A nuance the official guidance does not spell out: the section sits in the assessment chapter of the Act, after the application and the respondent's consent, which is why an examination request typically arrives only once a claim is already being assessed.

When the Board Can Request an Examination: the Two Statutory Triggers

The Board may request a Section 24 examination in only two situations, both set out in Section 24(1). The power is not open-ended, and identifying which trigger applies matters, because the consequence of non-compliance differs between them.

"The assessors may make the request referred to in subsection (2) if (a) any information or documents furnished by the claimant ... and consisting of any medical opinion (whether a diagnosis or prognosis) in relation to the claimant's injuries is not accepted as being correct by a respondent, or (b) the assessors otherwise consider it appropriate to do so."

Section 24(1), Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (irishstatutebook.ie)

The first trigger, in Section 24(1)(a), arises where a respondent does not accept the claimant's medical evidence as correct. The text applies where medical opinion furnished by the claimant, "whether a diagnosis or prognosis", is "not accepted as being correct by a respondent" (irishstatutebook.ie). The second, in Section 24(1)(b), is broader: the assessors may request an examination where they "otherwise consider it appropriate to do so". In practice the second trigger is what underpins the Board's routine arranging of an independent examination to obtain an up-to-date and objective view of the injuries before it values the claim.

There is a tension worth naming. Read strictly, the statutory power is discretionary and triggered, yet the Board's own guidance indicates that it arranges an independent examination in relation to most claims it goes on to assess. Both statements are accurate: the power is discretionary in law, and the discretion is exercised frequently in practice. The Injuries Resolution Board's published guidance on medical reports states that, following the treating report and once a respondent has consented, the Board "will where required arrange further medical examinations at no cost to the claimant" (injuries.ie).

The Independence Requirement (Section 24(3))

Section 24(3) requires the examining practitioner to have no financial or other interest that the outcome of the assessment could affect. This is the statutory guarantee of neutrality, and it is the feature that most distinguishes the IRB examination from a defence medical examination later in litigation.

The subsection sets a strict independence condition:

"That medical practitioner or those medical practitioners shall be a person or persons who have no pecuniary interest or other beneficial interest in, or material to, any matter which could reasonably be affected (whether favourably or unfavourably) by the outcome of the assessment."

Section 24(3), Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (irishstatutebook.ie)

The doctor is therefore not "the claimant's doctor" and not "the insurer's doctor"; the doctor reports to the Board. Section 24(4) adds, for the avoidance of doubt, that the examinations the Board may arrange "include a medical examination to be carried out in a place outside the State" (Section 24(4), irishstatutebook.ie). That allowance serves claimants who were injured in Ireland but have since emigrated or been repatriated after a serious accident, so the Board can obtain its independent evidence without requiring a return journey.

How Section 24 Differs from the Other Two Medical Steps

An Irish personal injury claim can involve three different medical examinations, and Section 24 governs only one of them. Conflating them is the most common error in online guidance, so the distinctions are set out below.

The mandatory document is the claimant's own report, not the Board examination. Since 4 September 2023, an application to the Board must be accompanied by a medical report; the Section 24 examination is a separate, later, Board-driven step. For what physically happens during an examination and how to prepare, our practical guide on the medical examination for an injury claim covers the logistics; the adversarial defence examination is addressed on our page on the defence medical examination and the usual terms.

Can the Claimant Respond to the Board's Report?

Yes. The Section 24 report produces evidence for the Board, not a verdict, and a claimant may make submissions and file further medical reports up to the point of assessment. The examination is one input into the valuation, and the claimant keeps a right of reply within the assessment.

The Injuries Resolution Board's guidance confirms that claimants "may also make submissions regarding the medical reports furnished or the nature of their claim" and may "submit further medical reports" until an assessment is made (injuries.ie). In practice this matters where the Board's examiner reaches a more conservative prognosis than the claimant's treating doctor. The claimant can place an updated treating report before the assessors rather than leaving the Section 24 view unanswered, and the assessors weigh all of the medical evidence together when valuing the claim under the Personal Injuries Guidelines.

Can a Claimant Refuse? Section 25 and Section 51C

A claimant can decline a Section 24 examination, because the Board has no power to compel attendance, but refusal carries real consequences under two separate provisions. The first operates inside the Board's process; the second operates if the claim later reaches court.

Within the assessment, Section 25 of the PIAB Act 2003 governs failure to comply with a Section 24 request, and the consequence depends on which trigger applied. Where the request followed a respondent's dispute under Section 24(1)(a):

"... the assessors shall, unless they see good reason for not doing so, make the assessment on the basis that the contention of the respondent ... was correct."

Section 25, Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Revised Act, Law Reform Commission)

Where the request was instead made under Section 24(1)(b), the assessors "proceed to make the assessment as best they may" without the examination. Either route can produce a lower or less reliable assessment.

The statute distinguishes genuine inability from tactical refusal. Section 25 directs the assessors to act adversely only "unless they see good reason for not doing so", and Section 24(4) lets the Board arrange the examination abroad, so a claimant living overseas or recovering from a serious injury is not treated as a refuser for being unable to travel. The penalty is aimed at avoidance, not at the claimant who cannot reasonably attend.

The more significant consequence sits outside the Board entirely. Section 51C, inserted by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Act 2019 and in force since 3 April 2019, gives a court a discretion on costs where a claimant has failed to submit to a Section 24(2) examination. A trial judge may decline to award the claimant costs, or order the claimant to pay some or all of the respondent's costs, even where the claimant ultimately succeeds on liability and damages. What changed in 2019 was the risk profile: before Section 51C, a claimant could sidestep the Board examination at little cost; since then, non-cooperation during the IRB phase can become expensive in later litigation. This is the practical effect behind a power that has no direct compulsion (Section 51C, Revised Act, Law Reform Commission).

How Does Section 24 Sit Within the Modern Injuries Resolution Board Process?

Section 24 itself has not changed since 2003, yet the process around it in Irish personal injury claims has been reshaped twice, by the 2019 cost amendments above and by the wider 2022 reforms that renamed the Board and added mediation. Understanding the current picture means reading the unchanged power against a changed surrounding framework, which the next sections set out: what the 2022 Act altered, who pays for the medical evidence, and where Section 24 has no application at all.

What the 2022 Reforms Changed

The 2022 Act renamed the Board and expanded its functions, but left the Section 24 examination power untouched. The name "Injuries Resolution Board" now sits over the same 2003 statutory machinery.

The Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 changed the Board's name with effect from 14 December 2023. The statutory English-language name became the "Personal Injuries Resolution Board" under Section 2 of that Act, while the Board operates publicly as the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB). It is, in short, the Injuries Resolution Board, formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) until 2023. The same reform introduced a mediation option and allowed the Board to retain certain long-prognosis claims for longer.

One development that practitioner and competitor content rarely notes: the 2022 reforms allow the Board, with the consent of both parties, to hold a claim where a long-term prognosis is not yet available, extending the assessment window by up to two years on top of the standard period. In those slowly resolving cases the Board may need updated medical evidence before it can assess, and a further Section 24 examination can form part of that updated evidence. The Section 24 power is the same; the timeline in which it may be exercised has lengthened for complex injuries.

The 2022 reforms also introduced a mediation option, and the Section 24 evidence base carries into it. Where the parties mediate rather than proceed to a formal assessment, the medical picture the examination produces still informs the value discussed, even though the mediation process itself is confidential. The examination therefore underpins resolution whether a claim is assessed or mediated.

On timing, the examination sits inside the Board's statutory assessment window rather than adding a separate stage. Under Section 49 the Board must, in the ordinary case, assess a claim within nine months of confirmation of the respondent's consent, and a Section 24 examination is arranged within that period. The examination does not itself stop or restart the Statute of Limitations clock; that is the function of the application to the Board, not of the later examination. For slowly resolving injuries the long-prognosis provision can extend the window, as set out above.

Who Pays: Section 44 and Report Costs

The Board pays for the Section 24 examination, but the claimant's own medical report is a separate out-of-pocket cost dealt with under Section 44. The distinction is a frequent source of confusion.

The Section 24 examination is arranged and funded by the Board, so a claimant is not charged for attending it. The treating-doctor report that must accompany the application is different: the claimant pays for it up front, and recovery of that cost falls under Section 44 of the PIAB Act 2003, headed "Expenses incurred by claimant". Under Section 44 the Board may direct a respondent to pay the fees and expenses that, in the Board's opinion, the claimant reasonably and necessarily incurred in complying with the process. Reporting in the Law Society Gazette (2025) has highlighted that the amounts the Board allows for treating-doctor reports often fall short of what consultants charge, leaving claimants to absorb the difference. That shortfall debate concerns the claimant's own report, not the free Section 24 examination.

Where Section 24 Does Not Apply in Irish Personal Injury Law

Section 24 applies only to claims within the Injuries Resolution Board's remit, which excludes medical negligence. Mapping that boundary keeps the provision in its correct place and avoids several common misreadings.

The Board determines no question of liability, so a Section 24 examination never addresses how the accident happened or who was at fault. The Board's role is to value the injuries, which is why the examining doctor confines the assessment to their nature, extent and prognosis. Where liability is disputed, it is a matter for the court if the claim proceeds beyond the Board, not for the examination room.

Medical negligence claims are excluded from the Board's process by statute. The Board's remit covers employer-liability, motor and public-liability claims; clinical negligence falls outside it, so a Section 24 examination never arises in a clinical negligence case and those claims proceed directly through the courts on their own expert framework. Because the claim is outside the Board's remit, an application to the Board in a medical negligence case does not stop the limitation clock. For that route, see our guide to medical negligence claims in Ireland.

A second point is purely one of citation hygiene. More than one Irish statute contains a "Section 24", and they are unrelated. Section 24 of the PIAB Act 2003 is the medical examination power discussed here. Section 24 of the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 is an unrelated provision entirely — it amends the Freedom of Information Act 2014. (The confidentiality of the new mediation process is dealt with elsewhere, in the Chapter 1A mediation provisions inserted into the 2003 Act by section 9 of the 2022 Act.) When a source cites "Section 24" in this area, the Act matters as much as the number.

Frequently Asked Questions