Kitson v Dennerstein (Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 2189: Health Records and Privacy

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has dismissed an application made against a medical practitioner on the basis that the practitioner had interfered with the applicant’s privacy by not providing the health information he had requested under the Health Records Act 2001 (VIC) (the Act).

The Facts

The applicant in the case had requested specific health information relied upon by the medical practitioner to substantiate her diagnosis of the applicant. The medical practitioner responded to his request by providing him with all of his health records and information that the practitioner possessed about him. The substance of the applicant’s complaint was that he did not need all the records but only those specific to his diagnosis.

The Privacy Issue at Hearing

At the hearing, the applicant submitted that as section 33(b) of the Act states that a request for access must sufficiently identify the health records to which access is sought, it follows that the medical practitioner’s offer to provide all of his health information does not meet the requirements of the Act. The applicant argued that this effectively imposed on the medical practitioner an obligation to identify only those particular documents used to justify her diagnosis.

The Tribunal dismissed the application. It found that the medical practitioner had complied with the requirements of the Act. The Tribunal interpreted that s33(b) required the applicant to identify the health information he or she is requesting. It does not require the medical practitioner to justify and further explain her diagnosis of the applicant.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Privacy and health information

Kitson v Dennerstein (Human Rights) [2013] VCAT 2189