ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138

ALZ v WorkCover NSW [2015] NSWCATAP 138

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the alleged contraventions of HPPs 1, 5, 9, 10 and 11: the medical report was collected for a lawful workplace safety investigation and was reasonably necessary on the evidence; additional HPP 5 issues were outside or answered by the Tribunal's findings; the recent professional report did not require further checking under HPP 9; WorkCover used the report for the primary purpose for which it collected it; and internal provision to a supervisor was not disclosure. However, WorkCover did not demonstrate that it had taken reasonable systemic steps satisfying HPP 6, because the material relied on, including its Privacy...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal in a Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 Review Application / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed in relation to HPP 6; otherwise dismissed; application remitted to the Tribunal for orders.
Legal Topics
['health Privacy Principles' 'collection of Health Information' 'notice and Openness Obligations' 'accuracy of Health Information' 'use and Disclosure of Health Information' 'ncat Internal Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Internal Appeal in a Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 Review Application / Appeal Panel Decision on the Papers From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding no contravention of HPP 1 in relation to the collection of the medical report.' "Whether further contraventions of HPP 5 were established beyond the Tribunal's finding under HPP 5(1)(c)." 'Whether the respondent contravened HPP 6 by failing to take reasonable steps to enable individuals to ascertain information about health information it held.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding no contravention of HPP 9 concerning relevance, accuracy, currency, completeness and misleading content.' 'Whether the respondent used the medical report for the primary purpose for which it was collected for the purposes of HPP 10.' 'Whether HPP 11 was engaged by provision of the report within the respondent organisation.' 'Whether leave should be granted to extend the appeal to grounds other than questions of law or to receive fresh evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the alleged contraventions of HPPs 1, 5, 9, 10 and 11: the medical report was collected for a lawful workplace safety investigation and was reasonably necessary on the evidence; additional HPP 5 issues were outside or answered by the Tribunal's findings; the recent professional report did not require further checking under HPP 9; WorkCover used the report for the primary purpose for which it collected it; and internal provision to a supervisor was not disclosure. However, WorkCover did not demonstrate that it had taken reasonable systemic steps satisfying HPP 6, because the material relied on, including its Privacy...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to HPP 6; otherwise dismissed; application remitted to the Tribunal for orders.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed in relation to the ruling of the Tribunal that the organisation did not contravene HPP 6.' 'That ruling is set aside.' 'Instead a finding is substituted that the respondent contravened HPP 6.' 'Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.' 'The application is remitted to the Tribunal for the making of...