THE OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Spacer GifHOME > Federal Privacy Law > 2007 - Complaint Case Note 24 Spacer Gif Spacer Gif Spacer Gif Spacer Gif
Spacer Gif
Spacer Gif
Spacer Gif Bullet Privacy Act
Spacer Gif Bullet Privacy Act Regulations
Spacer Gif Bullet Public Interest Determinations
Spacer Gif Bullet Guidelines
Spacer Gif Bullet Complaint Case Notes & Determinations
Spacer Gif Bullet Audits
Spacer Gif Bullet Information Privacy Principles
Spacer Gif Bullet National Privacy Principles
Spacer Gif Bullet Private Sector Codes and Opt-in Registers
Spacer Gif Bullet Credit Reporting
Spacer Gif Bullet Health
Spacer Gif Bullet Telecommunications
Spacer Gif Bullet Tax File Numbers
Spacer Gif Bullet Spent Convictions
Spacer Gif Bullet Data-matching
Spacer Gif Bullet Privacy Advisory Committee
Spacer Gif Bullet Private Sector Review 2005
Spacer Gif Bullet ALRC Privacy Inquiry 2006 - 08
Spacer Gif Bullet Privacy Law History
Spacer Gif SPECIFIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION FOR:
Spacer Gif > Individuals
Spacer Gif > Business
Spacer Gif > Health
Spacer Gif > Government
Horizontal Rule
Spacer Gif > Federal Privacy Law
Spacer Gif > About the Office
Spacer Gif > Frequently Asked Questions
Spacer Gif > IT and Internet Issues
Spacer Gif > Media and Speeches
Spacer Gif > Publications
Spacer Gif > Privacy Links
Spacer Gif > International
Spacer Gif > Contact us

Spacer Gif

2007 - Complaint Case Note 24

View printable version of this page

Case Citation:

V v Medical Practitioner [2007] PrivCmrA 24

Subject Heading:

Access to personal medical records used in legal proceedings

Law:

National Privacy Principle 6.1(e)

Facts:

The complainant was involved in a worker's compensation claim and underwent a medical examination requested by legal representatives of the company against which the claim had been made.

Following a tribunal decision in favour of the company, the complainant requested a copy of their complete medical records, as held by the medical practitioner who performed the examination. This included a copy of the clinical notes taken during the examination. The medical practitioner claimed that the notes had been virtually duplicated in reports tendered in the tribunal, to which the complainant had access. However, the medical practitioner denied access to the notes themselves. The medical practitioner claimed "medico-legal" professional privilege and stated that as the complainant was expected to appeal the original decision, the notes were part of ongoing legal proceedings.

Issues:

National Privacy Principle 6.1(e) states if an organisation holds personal information about an individual, it must provide the individual with access to the information on request by the individual, except to the extent that:

(e) the information relates to existing or anticipated legal proceedings between the organisation and the individual, and the information would not be accessible by the process of discovery in those proceedings.

Outcome:

The Privacy Commissioner investigated the matter under section 40(1) of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

As the notes had been presented to the tribunal as part of a report submitted during the compensation case, the Commissioner was of the view that they had been accessible in the proceedings.

As the substance of the information had already been provided to the court, the medical practitioner could not rely on legal professional privilege to withhold the notes from the complainant. Consequently, the medical practitioner could not rely on the exception in National Privacy Principle 6.1(e).

Given these findings, the medical practitioner granted the complainant full access to the medical records, including the clinical notes.

Satisfied that the complaint had been adequately dealt with, the Commissioner closed the matter under section 41(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.

OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
August 2007



Spacer Gif> Privacy Policy Spacer Gif> Copyright Spacer Gif> Site map Spacer Gif> Join Email List Spacer Gif> Glossary Spacer Gif> Calendar Spacer Gif> Newsletter