LB v Hunter New England Area Health Service

Case

[2010] NSWADT 82

31 March 2010


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
LB v Hunter New England Area Health Service [2010] NSWADT 82 [2010] NSWADT 82 31 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

LB brought a complaint against Hunter New England Area Health Service alleging breaches of the privacy principle in relation to the collection and accuracy of health information. The complaint arose from the defendant's handling of unsolicited health information provided by LB’s former partner. The matter was brought before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the defendant breached the health privacy principle by collecting and using LB's health information without her consent, and whether the information provided was accurate. LB argued that the health service improperly obtained and used her health information and that it was inaccurate. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the information was obtained lawfully and that it was accurate.

The Tribunal considered the Health Privacy Principle 2.1, which states that an agency must not collect personal information unless the collection is reasonably necessary for a function or activity of the agency and the individual has been given the opportunity to provide the information. The Tribunal found that the defendant had not breached this principle as the information was obtained in the course of providing a service to LB's former partner, and it was reasonable for the information to be collected in this context. The Tribunal also determined that the information was accurate as it was consistent with the medical records provided by LB's former partner. The Tribunal concluded that the defendant did not breach the privacy principle and dismissed the complaint.

No action was ordered to be taken by the Tribunal.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Privacy Law

Legal Concepts

  • Collection and Accuracy of Health Information

  • Unsolicited Health Information

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

10

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

4