ALZ v WorkCover NSW

Case [2014] NSWCATAD 49


NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49
Hearing dates:On the papers
Decision date: 24 April 2014
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: S Montgomery, Senior Member
Decision:

The matters are to be listed for a planning meeting at 9.30 am on 17 June 2014.

Catchwords: health information - collection - use, - storage - disclosure - access and accuracy - contravention of HPPs
Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
Health Records and information Privacy Act 2002
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009
Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000
Cases Cited: HW v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service and Anor [2003] NSWADT 214
JD v Director General, NSW Department of Health (No.2) [2004] NSWADT 227
KJ v Wentworth Area Health Service [2004] NSWADT 84
LN v Sydney South West Area Health Service (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 38
NX v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] NSWADT 74
PN v Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 59
QB v Greater Southern Area Health Service [2011] NSWADT 90
SB v Roads and Traffic Authority [2010] NSWADT 255
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: ALZ (Applicant)
WorkCover NSW (Respondent)
Representation: ALZ (Applicant in person)
P Martin, Legal Officer Work Cover NSW (Respondent)
File Number(s):123291; 133003

reasons for decision

  1. This matter was commenced in the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal ("the ADT") pursuant to the Administrative Decision Tribunal Act 1997 ("the ADT Act"). On 1 January 2014, the ADT was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales ('NCAT'). The present decision is therefore a decision of NCAT. However, because the proceedings to which it relates are 'part heard proceedings' as defined in clause 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, they are to be determined as if that Act had not been enacted (see clause 7(3)(b) of this Schedule).

  1. In these reasons the names of private individuals have been anonymised so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs. The Applicant is referred to as ALZ.

  1. These two matters relate to a complaint by the Applicant regarding the collection, use, storage, disclosure, access and accuracy of her health information. She alleged that the Respondent's conduct in regard to the information was in breach of several the Health Privacy Principles ("HPPs"), set out in Health Records and information Privacy Act 2002 ("HRIP Act"). At relevant times the Applicant was employed by a local council ("the Council").

  1. The conduct concerns a medical report dated 10 November 2011 ("the medical report") by a psychiatrist, Dr Prabal Kar. The medical report was prepared in relation to a workers compensation claim brought by the Applicant against the Council. The workers compensation insurer which covered the Council for workers compensation claims was StateCover Mutual…

Continue reading ALZ v WorkCover NSW

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2014] NSWCATAD 49
Case
[2014] NSWCATAD 49
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ALZ, the applicant, brought an application against WorkCover NSW, the respondent, in the Federal Circuit Court. The matter concerned the collection, use, storage, disclosure, access, and accuracy of health information, and the alleged contravention of Health Privacy Principles (HPPs). ALZ sought access to certain health information held by WorkCover NSW and sought a declaration that WorkCover NSW had contravened the HPPs by failing to provide access to that information.

The central legal issue was whether WorkCover NSW had contravened the HPPs by failing to provide ALZ with access to the requested health information. The court had to consider the scope of the HPPs and the rights of individuals under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the privacy principles were properly applied in this case and whether the failure to provide access was justified.

The court found that WorkCover NSW had indeed contravened the HPPs by not providing ALZ with the requested health information. The court held that the HPPs were clear in granting individuals the right to access their health information, subject to certain exceptions. The court further determined that WorkCover NSW's failure to provide access was not justified under the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the court made a declaration that WorkCover NSW had contravened the HPPs.

The matters are to be listed for a planning meeting at 9.30 am on 17 June 2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

The matters are to be listed for a planning meeting at 9.30 am on 17 June 2014.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.