The complainant's attendant care and home help compensation was cancelled after an assessment carried out on behalf of the ACC. The compensation was later reinstated. The complainant alleged that his compensation had been cancelled because of inaccurate information in the assessor's report.

After I had investigated the matter, the ACC apologised, changed its system and offered compensation to the complainant.

Rule 8 provides:

(1) A health agency that holds health information must not use that information without taking such steps (if any) as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant, and not misleading.

The issue I had to consider was whether the ACC took reasonable steps to ensure that the assessor's report was accurate before using it to make a decision about the complainant's entitlement to care and home help.

The ACC conceded that the assessor's report contained inaccurate information but argued that it was entitled to rely on the report, given that the assessor was qualified to provide it.

Cancelling the complainant's compensation without giving him an opportunity to respond was a serious decision. I considered that it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to check the assessment with information already held about the complainant. It would also have been reasonable to give him an opportunity to comment on the report because the ACC was considering taking adverse action against him. The ACC failed to take these steps, and I formed the opinion that it had breached principle 8.

Because he had suffered harm as defined in s 66(1) I formed the opinion that this breach had amounted to an interference with the complainant's privacy. Although his compensation was ultimately reinstated, he was unnecessarily deprived of it for a time and thus suffered a detriment. I also considered he suffered significant humiliation and loss of dignity as a result of the ACC's actions.

The ACC apologised to the complainant and made systemic changes to ensure this problem would not recur. It also made what I considered to be a reasonable offer of financial compensation. The complainant rejected this and asked for a significantly higher sum. As the parties could not reach an agreement, I considered that nothing further would be gained by my continued involvement.

I discontinued my investigation under s 71(2), Privacy Act 1993.

August 1999