In the decision of May 20, 2020, GZ: DSB-D2020-0.251.582 (D124.1791), the DSB had to deal with the accusation of unauthorized inspection of the patient file of a person concerned by an ordination assistant.
In her complaint, the complainant first argued that she had received medical treatment from the respondent. Due to a missed doctor’s appointment, a dispute had arisen between her and the respondent’s assistant and she had subsequently posted a negative evaluation of the respondent on the Internet. According to the complainant’s suspicions, the physician’s assistant then inspected her patient file in order to find her employer’s data so that he could himself post a negative evaluation of the complainant on the Internet.
In the course of the proceedings before the data protection authority, the respondent and the physician’s assistant respectively argued that the evaluation submitted
would not be related to the complainant, but would have meant another employee of the complainant’s employer.
After conducting the investigation, the data protection authority considered it proven that the evaluation of the ordination assistant was directed against the complainant. Furthermore, the data protection authority considered it proven that the medical assistant had accessed the complainant’s patient file, since the information regarding the complainant’s employer was not information that could be accessed on the Internet and the data protection authority was also unable to determine the complainant’s employer in the course of an official search.
The complaint was therefore upheld and it was found that the complainant’s right to confidentiality had been violated.
The decision is not legally binding.