1 Feb 2002, 09:00

As a result of an accident, a man had been receiving weekly compensation payments under the provisions of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992.

Section 64(1)(d) of the Act enables the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Corporation (ACC) to require a person receiving compensation to undergo examination by an appropriate registered health professional specified by ACC. The man's case manager arranged for him to be examined by a doctor.

The man alleged that the case manager failed to advise him of the true purpose of the examination. The man advised me that he attended the consultation on the understanding that it was for rehabilitation purposes. He alleged, however, that the true purpose of the consultation was to assess his entitlement to receive weekly compensation. In the event, his compensation ceased because of the doctor's assessment. The man contended that because he was not advised that the consultation was for the purpose of assessing entitlement to compensation, he was denied an opportunity to counter any inaccuracies in the doctor's report, to seek counsel and to have someone else present at the consultation.

I investigated the complaint on the basis of possible breaches of rules 2 and 10 of the Health Information Privacy Code and concluded that there was no breach.

Rule 2

This rule provides that a health agency must collect health information from the individual concerned unless one of the exceptions to the rule applies. One of the exceptions covers situations where the individual has authorised collection from someone else (rule 2(a)(i)). For the exception to apply, the individual must have been made aware of various matters (set out in rule 3(1)) such as the fact that information is being collected, the purpose of the collection and the recipients of the information.

When the man first raised his complaint with ACC, it advised him that the arrangement for him to undergo medical examination was made under section 64(1) of the 1992 Act. This provides:

_Every person who claims for or is in receipt of any rehabilitation, compensation, grant, or allowance shall, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation,-
(a) give to the Corporation the prescribed certificate of a registered health professional as to such matters, and containing such information, as the Corporation requires;
(b) furnish to the Corporation such other relevant information as the Corporation requires;
(c) authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records which are or may be relevant to the claim;
(d) undergo examination, at the expense of the Corporation, by an appropriate registered health professional specified by the Corporation for the purpose;
(e) undergo assessment of impairment, disability, or handicap at the expense of the Corporation;
(f) undergo assessment of present and likely capabilities for the purposes of rehabilitation at the expense of the Corporation;
(g) take action by way of rehabilitation in order to endeavour to terminate or reduce the extent of any impairment, disability, or handicap._

(This section has been replaced by section 55 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001.) Section 7(4) of the Privacy Act means that an action will not be a breach of the privacy principles or rules if that action is authorised or required by law. I considered that the action by ACC of collecting information from the doctor was authorised under law by section 64(1) of the Act and so was not in breach of rule 2.

Rule 10

This rule provides that health information that is obtained in connection with one purpose must not be used for any other purpose, unless one of the exceptions applies. One of the exceptions covers situations where the purpose for which the information is used is directly related to the purpose in connection with which the information was obtained (rule 10(1)(b)).

The man contended that he had been informed that the purpose for obtaining the information from the doctor was for 'work conditioning' or rehabilitation but, instead, ACC used it for assessing eligibility for compensation.

I took the view that the level and type of rehabilitation the man received was related to his capacity to work. Similarly, his eligibility to receive compensation related to his capacity to work. The two were inextricably linked. Rehabilitation assistance and ongoing payment of compensation would both cease if the man was found fit for work, as was the case.

I considered that the use of the information to assess eligibility for compensation was directly related to assessing rehabilitative needs, and fell within the exception provided by rule 10(1)(b). I formed the opinion that ACC had not breached rule 10 of the Health Information Privacy Code.

I advised the man accordingly and closed my file.

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - ACC - Man referred to a registered health professional for assessment - Purpose of referral - Compensation payments ceased - Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, s 64 - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 2

Use of personal information - ACC - Information collected for rehabilitation purposes - Whether information used to assess eligibility for continued compensation - Two uses inextricably linked - Health Information Privacy Code 1994, rule 10

May 2002