DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Case Note 210870 [2010] NZ Priv Cmr 24 : Medical centre fails to establish identity of requester and discloses health information about a patient to their former partner

Posted on January 12, 2011 by Dissent

From the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of New Zealand:

A man, M, who was involved in legal proceedings with his former partner, X, was a patient of a medical centre. The medical centre previously provided medical care to M and his family when he and X were still together.

X visited the medical centre with her new partner, N, and they requested historical information about the family and, in particular, an incident which involved one of the children a number of years before.

The medical centre assumed that N was M and so released all of the health information held about M, X and the children to the couple. This included a separate file relating to M which contained highly sensitive information about an anxiety disorder he was suffering from.

X then attached the information obtained from the medical centre to an affidavit presented to the Family Court in an attempt to show M as a bad parent. M was humiliated by the disclosure.

Rule 5 of the Health Information Privacy Code requires health agencies, such as the medical centre, to ensure that health information is protected, by reasonable security safeguards, against unauthorised disclosure.

In addition, section 45(a) of the Privacy Act requires agencies ensure that a requester is appropriately identified before providing them with personal or health information.

Rule 11 expects that a health agency shall not disclose health information to any individual unless the agency believes on reasonable grounds that an exception applies.

Here, the medical centre made an assumption that N was M and took no steps to ensure that this assumption was correct. Instead, it disclosed highly sensitive information about M to X and N.

We were satisfied that the medical centre breached rule 5 as it lacked the procedures and processes to ensure that steps were always taken to establish identity before releasing health information.

We were also satisfied that the disclosure of this information breached rule 11 as no exception applied to allow the medical centre to disclose the information.

We formed the view that the disclosure of M’s information to X and N caused M significant harm and we conveyed this view to the medical centre.

The medical centre accepted that its procedures were lacking, made extensive changes to its policy regarding the identification of information requesters, and trained its staff in their obligations under the Code.

The medical centre also agreed to apologise directly to M for its actions, pay him financial compensation and provide him and his children with free medical services for a set period of time.

We were satisfied with the steps that the medical centre took to ensure that the mistakes made with M’s health information were not repeated. M was satisfied with the settlement proposal that the medical centre offered to him personally. We closed our file.

Read more on Privacy.org.nz

H/T, @JCELaw

No related posts.

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← UK: Dorset HealthCare Trust send confidential health faxes by mistake
(update) Vodafone fires staff after security breaches →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Disclose Unlawfully Classified National Defense Information
  • UK police arrest four in connection with M&S, Co-op and Harrods cyberattacks (1)
  • At U.S. request, France jails Russian basketball player Daniil Kasatkin on suspicion of ransomware conspiracy
  • Avantic Medical Lab hacked; patient data leaked by Everest Group
  • Integrated Oncology Network victim of phishing attack; multiple locations affected (2)
  • HHS’ Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule Investigation with Deer Oaks Behavioral Health for $225k and a Corrective Action Plan
  • HB1127 Explained: North Dakota’s New InfoSec Requirements for Financial Corporations
  • Credit reports among personal data of 190,000 breached, put for sale on Dark Web; IT vendor fined
  • Five youths arrested on suspicion of phishing
  • Russia Jailed Hacker Who Worked for Ukrainian Intelligence to Launch Cyberattacks on Critical Infrastructure

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • How to Build on Washington’s “My Health, My Data” Act
  • Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children
  • Google Settles Privacy Class Action Over Period Tracking App
  • ICE Is Searching a Massive Insurance and Medical Bill Database to Find Deportation Targets
  • Franklin, Tennessee Resident Sentenced to 30 Months in Federal Prison on Multiple Cyber Stalking Charges
  • On July 7, Gemini AI will access your WhatsApp and more. Learn how to disable it on Android.
  • German court awards Facebook user €5,000 for data protection violations

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.