Source: https://www.kinstellar.com/insights/detail/885/slovak-data-protection-authority-fines-faculty-hospital-nitra-for-providing-medical-records-to-expert-witness
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 14:08:57
Document Index: 80165308

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 14', '§ 9', '§ 80', '§25', '§ 14', '§ 13', '§ 10']

﻿ Slovak Data Protection Authority fines Faculty Hospital Nitra for providing medical records to expert witness (Detail) - Legal Services Kinstellar
May 2019 – The Slovak Data Protection Authority (“Slovak DPA”) has fined Faculty Hospital Nitra EUR 2,000 for unlawfully processing sensitive personal data in breach of § 13 section 1 of Act. No 122/2013 Coll., On Personal Data Protection (“Data Protection Act 2013”).
However, the Slovak DPA argued that under Data Protection Act 2013, in order to process health- related data already published by the data subject him/herself under § 14 e), the Data Controller must also have a legal basis pursuant to § 9 section 1. The Slovak DPA did not find such a legal basis and therefore concluded that the hospital violated the law by providing health-related data to the media, even though the minor’s parents had already made this information available to the media and it had already been published.
Furthermore, under Slovak law a medical professional is obliged to maintain the facts he / she has learned in relation to the performance of his / her profession confidential in accordance with § 80 section 3 of Act No. 578/2004 Coll. On Healthcare Providers (“Act on Providers”). Only the person concerned (and the authority that issued the permit to provide healthcare) may discharge a medical professional from this confidentiality obligation. However, the Act on Providers does not require any specific form for the discharge of confidentiality by the person concerned. The publishing of health-related data by a person having the right to do so may eventually be seen as equal to the tacit discharge of confidentiality. The Slovak DPA did not take this into account in its decision.
The Slovak DPA maintained that the provision of §25 section 1 b)[1] of Act No. 576/2004 Coll., on Healthcare (“Healthcare Act”) shall be applied when obtaining the opinion of an expert medical witness.
The Slovak DPA construed its argumentation in such a way that a healthcare provider is only entitled to provide medical records to an expert witness appointed by a court, a law enforcement agency, a public administration body or by a party in court proceedings. This opinion is based on the argument that § 14 a) – e) of Data Protection Act 2013 contain an exemption from the general ban on processing sensitive personal data, inter alia data related to one’s health, and that the provisions of § 13 to 14 are specific to § 10.
If we adopted the position of the Slovak DPA in each similar case, it would lead to impractical and even absurd situations. Healthcare providers facing a patient’s allegation of medical malpractice would not be able to decide whether to challenge certain (perhaps unfounded) claims or be able to prepare their arguments based on facts contained in the patient’s medical records, unless the case is subject to administrative, civil or criminal proceedings.
The healthcare provider would not be able to consult the situation with its insurer or its shareholders and would lack crucial expert opinion that could eventually allow for either an out-of-court or court settlement, if the claim would be supported by the expert witness. Evidence obtained by an expert witness who was appointed by the Data Controller and not by a court would, in view of the Slovak DPA’s decision, result in unlawfully obtained evidence and hence be unacceptable in court.
In addition, such argumentation would have an adverse effect on a Data Controllers’ ability to prepare and plan their legal defense. An attorney is also a third party in a position similar to an expert witness. If we accept the DPA’s decision, this would mean that sensitive personal data should not be disclosed to an attorney in relation to planning and preparing a legal action, despite the fact that an attorney is bound by a professional confidentiality obligation (as is an expert witness).
The European Data Protection Board explained in relation to a similar point[2] that the legal basis for the exemption may be relied on in relation to a procedure that “must have a basis in law”, but not necessarily one limited to judicial, administrative or even to out-of-court procedures. This legal basis should not be relied on if there is only a mere possibility of a legal proceeding, but it does allow for certain actions before the start of a proceeding. For instance, it can cover actions to launch procedures (e.g., commencing litigation or pre-trial discovery).
or Lukáš Mrázik, Associate, at
[1] We are of the opinion that this is an error in the DPA’s decision, and that expert witness access to medical records is dealt with in letter j). Letter b) deals with the full access to medical records of a deceased patient by a surviving husband or wife, parents or a closed person under the provision of the Civil Code.
[2] Guidelines 2/2018 on derogations of Article 49 under Regulation 2016/679, including relying on the necessity for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims for international data transfer, accessible from this link.