ACC declined a woman's claim for earnings-related compensation. She believed this was because her doctor had told ACC that she did not appear to be in formal employment, which she alleged was incorrect.

The allegation was that the doctor had breached rule 8 of the Health Information Privacy Code. Rule 8 requires an agency to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they plan to use is accurate, complete and up-to-date.

However, ACC told me that their decision to decline the claim was not based on information from the doctor, but on information provided by the claimant herself and information obtained from the Inland Revenue Department.

To be eligible for weekly compensation an injured person must be:
- incapacitated through injuries; and
- an earner at the time of the incapacity.

ACC obtains medical opinion to clarify incapacity. It obtains information from Inland Revenue, employers and accountants to satisfy the second test. Documents provided by ACC supported their assertion.

I recognised that the doctor's comment may have alerted ACC to the possibility that the woman had not been employed. It may have caused ACC to investigate further, and to obtain information to determine her claim. However, ACC did not actually 'use' the disputed information supplied by the doctor to determine whether the claimant was an earner, so it was not obliged to take steps to ensure the information was accurate for that purpose.

ACC did obtain information from the doctor for the purpose of assessing the extent of the claimant's incapacity. Because ACC processes have an inbuilt review and complaint procedure, I considered this lessened the steps ACC had to take to comply with rule 8: claimants could use those avenues to put their points of view.

For these reasons, I formed the opinion that ACC had not breached rule 8.

Indexing terms: Accuracy of personal information - ACC - Steps to check accuracy - Inbuilt review and complaint procedures lessen steps required to check accuracy - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 8

June 2001