disclosure of medical records?

alistair.long

I was in court today at a case management confrence for a accident I had some time ago.
Directions were being set and the other party wanted copies of my medical records. I objected and quoted "OCS Group Ltd v Wells (2008)" and "Bennett v Compass Group UK & Ireland". the judge decided that i should have to disclose the documents to the other party within 14 days as apposed to their medical expert and they are refused a expert.

I therefore am wondering if I can do anything about it, or vary the order, or appeal the order so that I dont have to disclose to the other party solicitor.

geri1965_2

Why don't you want them disclosed? I have to say I think they have every right to see them.

lisyloo

As a general question to the expert audience, I'm wondering whether if you had something you wanted to hide (maybe HIV, an abortion, post rape treatment etc.) can you have only the relevant stuff disclosed?
I can certainly understand why some people might not want their entire medical history passed on especially to non-medical people who are not subject to confidentiality/hypocratic oath etc.
Perhaps it's the price you have to pay if you claim?

alistair.long

Its not that I dont want to disclose, its because the law says I dont have to

Parking_Trouble

alistair.long wrote: »

Its not that I dont want to disclose, its because the law says I dont have to

Difficult to say without knowing the background.

When you say the law says you don't have to is that based on the cases you have cited or is it an actual law.

Presumably the judge has weighed up cases you have cited and decided they don't apply to your case. He surely hasn't ignored a law that says you don't have to disclose?

bobajob_1966

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Difficult to say without knowing the background.

When you say the law says you don't have to is that based on the cases you have cited or is it an actual law.

Presumably the judge has weighed up cases you have cited and decided they don't apply to your case. He surely hasn't ignored a law that says you don't have to disclose?

The cited cases are Court of Appeal decisions - they are 'actual law'! Having said that, the OP has misinterpreted the ratio. There is no law to say that medical records do not have to be produced, but rather that they should only be produced at the appropriate time. The judge will determine when is appropriate according the facts of the case in question.

Parking_Trouble

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

The cited cases are Court of Appeal decisions - they are 'actual law'! Having said that, the OP has misinterpreted the ratio. There is no law to say that medical records do not have to be produced, but rather that they should only be produced at the appropriate time. The judge will determine when is appropriate according the facts of the case in question.

O.K. Bob I am not a lawyer.

Are they not decisions that have been made in the appeal court and they set a precedent that you can cite in your case if it fits with your specific circumstances.

Not sure it has changed the law on the statute books but it provides an interpretation of the law in a real scenario that the judge will certainly take into account.

Crazy_Jamie

alistair.long wrote: »

I was in court today at a case management confrence for a accident I had some time ago.
Directions were being set and the other party wanted copies of my medical records. I objected and quoted "OCS Group Ltd v Wells (2008)" and "Bennett v Compass Group UK & Ireland". the judge decided that i should have to disclose the documents to the other party within 14 days as apposed to their medical expert and they are refused a expert.

I therefore am wondering if I can do anything about it, or vary the order, or appeal the order so that I dont have to disclose to the other party solicitor.

You need to go back and read those two cases again. They do not state that you don't have to disclose medical records. Their overarching principle is that a Claimant should be prepared to disclose his or her medical records, but only at the appropriate time in the proceedings. An application for disclosure of medical records was actually refused in OCS v Wells because the application had been made pre action before the claim had been issued. You mention that this application was made at a CMC in your case, which suggests that proceedings have been issued, so your facts are distinct from those in OCS.

Unless there is some other point that you can hang your hat on it doesn't sound to me like you're going to get anywhere taking this matter further. Though for the sake of completeness, you cannot vary an order that you have been present at and/or had notice of. You can only appeal the decision, which requires applying for permission to appeal first, and then running the appeal itself. Which would more than likely be a tremendous waste of time and money, particularly in terms of costs exposure. In short, I'd leave it.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Are they not decisions that have been made in the appeal court and they set a precedent that you can cite in your case if it fits with your specific circumstances.

Not sure it has changed the law on the statute books but it provides an interpretation of the law in a real scenario that the judge will certainly take into account.

That's pretty much it, yes.

alistair.long

Thanks for your replies, here is the link for Bennett v Compass Group UK,
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/642.html

1. As I have indicated, that point is not now being taken. What is said is that, assuming there was jurisdiction to make an order of this kind, such an order should only be made in exceptional circumstances because in principle a patient should retain control over his or her own medical records. I entirely agree that a judge should think long and hard before making such an order because a defendant should only be allowed to see a claimant's medical records in carefully defined circumstances.
2. Moreover, where an order is made that the claimant authorise a third party to permit an opposing party to inspect medical records, the order must be very clearly and carefully drafted and must ensure that none of the claimant's rights, whether under the European Convention on Human Rights or otherwise, are or could be infringed. The precise nature of the authority must be very carefully delineated so that there is no doubt what it is that the defendants are to be permitted to see. Thus it must be quite clear to the person, or body, to whom the authority is given precisely what it is the claimant is authorising them to disclose and what he or she is not authorising them to disclose. For these reasons I would expect an order in these similar terms to be rare.

I would have prefered private details remain private, as the case is going to be in a public domain and therefore my claim can be seen by anybody, in essense my private medical records can be discussed at length and be accessed publicly.
Were is the private and confidentiality?
I must state and did in court also I donot mind their Medical expert reviewing my documents, but not the defendants.

Crazy_Jamie

alistair.long wrote: »

I would have prefered private details remain private, as the case is going to be in a public domain and therefore my claim can be seen by anybody, in essense my private medical records can be discussed at length and be accessed publicly.
Were is the private and confidentiality?

This is not strictly true. Medical records are still confidential documents and have to be treated by Defendants in a certain way. They cannot just post them up online, for example. Equally, if the medical records are discussed in Court it will only be the ones that are relevant to the case at hand. So your fears about your medical records being accessed publicly are misplaced; they cannot be accessed in such a way.

alistair.long wrote:

I must state and did in court also I donot mind their Medical expert reviewing my documents, but not the defendants.

It is not unusual nowadays for medical records to be sent to the Defendant solicitors first. You have to understand that the Defendant solicitors don't have an ulterior motive here; they are only interested in your medical records so that they can gleam anything that is relevant from them that may undermine your case. You can safely assume that that is all they will be used for.

Quentin

alistair.long wrote: »

I must state and did in court also I donot mind their Medical expert reviewing my documents, but not the defendants.

You seem to be unrepresented.

You do really need to have some legal advice over this (are you not represented because you have been advised not to pursue this through court?)

But relying on replies on a forum is no way to prepare your argument.

(The judge should have given some explanation why he was giving the directions you objected to)