1 Feb 2002, 09:00

A man received compensation payments for a number of years from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). When the man wanted to go back to work, ACC decided as part of the rehabilitation process that he should consult two work rehabilitation advisory agencies and his doctor.

ACC prepared a file summary which included a history of his injury claims, financial, personal, family, and other general information related to his injuries. Copies of this summary were sent to the advisers and to his doctor.

The man complained to me that the file summary contained personal, family, and financial details that, in his opinion, had no bearing on his rehabilitation. He considered that ACC's actions in disclosing this information had caused an interference with his privacy.

After reviewing the case, I came to the view that ACC's disclosure had breached rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994 but that ACC's actions had not caused an interference with the man's privacy.

Rule 11

Rule 11 provides that a health agency must not disclose health information unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that an exception applies.

ACC said that the purpose in providing the file summary was to give background information to those involved in the man's rehabilitation process. ACC considered that a file summary was the most appropriate way of providing this information.

When I raised the matter with ACC, it reviewed the file and accepted that some of the information contained in the file summary was not directly relevant to the rehabilitation process. ACC then tried to rectify the situation. It retrieved the file summary from one adviser. The other adviser had destroyed its copy. The man recovered the file summary from his doctor. The man's case manager wrote to him apologising for any distress he may have experienced as a result of the disclosure.

I took the view that some of the information was relevant to the man's rehabilitation, and it was necessary to disclose this to the advisers and the doctor. As to this information, ACC was able to rely on rule 11(1)(c), which allows information to be disclosed if disclosure is one of the purposes in connection with which the information was obtained.

However, I thought that other information, such as administrative and family information, was not relevant to the rehabilitation process and ACC's disclosure was not one of the purposes for which the information was held. ACC accepted that this was the case. None of the exceptions to rule 11 applied to this information. I formed the opinion that by disclosing this information ACC had breached rule 11.

Harm

Section 66 of the Privacy Act provides that before an action can amount to an interference with a person's privacy, I must be of the opinion that the action was in breach of the Code and that it caused some form of adverse consequence.

The man believed that the disclosure led to a number of adverse consequences:
- The man said that he had to change his doctor because he perceived that the doctor's attitude towards him had changed after becoming aware of the personal and financial information in the file summary.
- The man said that when he went into an ACC branch office to discuss a number of matters, including problems relating to the file summary, ACC told him it could do no more for him. The man refused to leave the office until ACC had resolved all matters (including matters unrelated to the file summary) to his satisfaction. ACC called the Police and the man was arrested and had a trespass notice served on him to keep away from that branch office. The man believed that his relationship with ACC had become untenable.
- The man claimed that the embarrassment, humiliation and stress caused by ACC had affected his pain control when he went to hospital for an operation.

I considered whether the harm that the man claimed had arisen as a result of ACC's actions in disclosing the information in the summary.

I was of the opinion that ACC's breach led to the man's embarrassment and humiliation and to the fact that he felt it necessary to change his doctor. I did not think that his arrest for trespass or the trespass notice was caused by ACC's breach. Furthermore, while I accepted that treatment in hospital would have been stressful, I was not satisfied that it was connected to ACC's actions.

I was not satisfied that the harm the man alleged he suffered was all a result of ACC's actions. Even where ACC's actions had caused some harm, it was not harm of the significance required by section 66. In my opinion ACC had not caused an interference with the man's privacy. I notified the parties of my opinion and closed my file.

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - ACC - Disclosure to third parties involved in rehabilitation - Harm resulted from disclosure - Not sufficiently significant - Privacy Act 1993, s66(1) - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 11

June 2002