Carver and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Dr Peter Sharman, who adduced evidence comprising his own oral evidence and that of Dr Thomson, a general practitioner. Dr Sharman also tendered several documents in support of his application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including tax invoices, bundles of documents, correspondence regarding summons protocols, an opinion piece on court proceedings, and transcripts of previous Tribunal proceedings. The evidence of Dr Thomson, who had no direct involvement in Ms Carver's case, focused on his experience with file requests from insurance companies and his practice when served with subpoenas or summonses to produce documents.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included the proper approach for medical practitioners when faced with requests or summonses for patient records, the extent of a doctor's professional duty in such circumstances, and whether medical practitioners are generally aware of their rights to object to such requests. Specifically, the Tribunal considered Dr Thomson's evidence regarding his practice of discussing the implications of releasing records with patients and his belief that doctors have a professional responsibility to explain these implications. The Tribunal also examined Dr Thomson's opinion on whether doctors are aware of avenues to object to summonses for complete medical files.

The Tribunal considered the evidence of Dr Thomson, who testified about his extensive experience with legal requests for medical documents. He stated that when served with a summons, his practice was to discuss the implications with the patient, as he believed patients generally considered their files confidential and might be surprised by a compulsion to release them. Dr Thomson also expressed the view that it was a doctor's professional duty to explain the implications of consenting to the release of information. However, he conceded that this practice was variable within the medical profession and that, in his experience, doctors were not generally aware of avenues to object to a summons for a complete medical file.