That’s not bad. 7/10 for mine, but needs more references to PAPERRRRRRR
Whether the health record is paper or electronic is irrelevant.
If I got see Dr X tomorrow and never go back my file is getting deleted in January 29, 2028 irrespective of whether it’s stored in a paper box or “on the cloud”.
Also, as has been pointed out numerous times the obligation would be for EFC to maintain those medical records for on site consultations.
1 Like
I’m not convinced he is a lawyer. I’m guessing he just works in a law firm, maybe as a secretary?
I did make a bunch of serious points above about the 7 year requirement, but nobody has engaged with those points. The lawyers for the players intend to have a real dispute about whether the disposal was actually lawful, and there are good reasons for that.
I understand the argument that the clubs will make (and you are making) but I’m far from convinced it will get up.
Oh Ross, you’re right, if only we could all be as intelligent and accomplished as you!
I know exactly where I am treading.
I’m not suggesting they didn’t do their job well at the time. I’m suggesting things were done differently at the time and I can point to about 5,000 instances of players getting head knocks, being KOd etc and then being let to play out the game prior to 2015 as evidence.
The other interesting point is that during the Saga, EFC were fined under the WHS Act. This means that the authorities are now of the view that the WHS Act applies to sports clubs and the athletes.
A head knock that requires the attention of a medical practitioner would be a reportable incident under the Act.
3 Likes
Luckily any head knocks in 2013 were more than seven years ago now. Hopefully any such reports can now be turfed.
For mine, this isn’t that difficult. The requirement to hold medical records for 7 years only overrides The Privacy Act in terms of a positive action to hold those records longer than would be otherwise be prescribed by TPA. It doesn’t mean that the APP are ignored for the sake of the records only existing for 7 years and no longer.
APP Entities are still required to hold said records where it is needed for authorised use or disclosure, especially where it might be involved in legal proceedings.
The idea that organisations can just delete records after a 7 year period is silly, especially in the case of cloud servers and information. The courts will interpret it that way too.
1 Like
“Your honour, 15 is larger than 7. The defence rests.”
1 Like
As recently as today years ago, depending on which hospital.
1 Like
Why wouldn’t it get up?
The legal requirements are to keep medical records for 7 years.
Did this occur? If the answer is “yes” then the players’ lawyers can spin it any way they want but it won’t (or shouldn’t) effect the outcome.
https://www.avant.org.au/Resources/Public/Storing-retaining-and-disposing-of-medical-records/
That’s not how the law works. There’s a whole field (statutory interpretation) dedicated to analysing the meaning behind laws.
If you were the defence and argued “well your Honour the statute says this so my client did that, case closed”, you would be laughed at.
Edit: I don’t even know why this is contentious. If society operated on black-letter law then we wouldn’t need lawyers at all.
For reasons I and others have already outlined above
Mate, your argument is that somehow it’s AFL HQs fault that either the clubs or private medical centres have destroyed medical records, as is their legal right, after 7 years.
I’m not sure your opinion means ■■■■ on the topic.
If you can find a court case where the medical provider has been deemed “at fault” or “negligent” for the above I’ll play but as far as I’m aware none exists in Australia.
So what exactly have the health care providers done “wrong” in this instance?
Zanuck (as the example) last saw someone at Olympic Park medicine in 2004(?).
They don’t hear from him or anyone associated with him for over a decade, and well past their legal obligations to maintain his medical records.
As every other health care provider does, they destroy his medical records as they’re no longer needed and their existence provides a potential leak of his privileged personal information.
Zantuck then asks them for his medical records.
They say “sorry mate, you haven’t been here for so long we destroyed them”.
I don’t know and I’m not saying I do know. My statements are entirely based on the law and how it works.
I presume if this proceeds to litigation, that question will be answered.
See above. Medical professionals have an obligation to retain records if there is any risk of a claim arising in connection with treatment, or if they believe it is necessary for use or disclose.
This is absolutely not true as plenty of healthcare providers retain records for longer, for the above reasons. Your anecdote about paper boxes is irrelevant. In real life, doctors know (or ought to know) that brain injuries are persistent, chronic and often dormant for decades. The law, case and statute, reflects this.
Relying solely on privacy statutes written in 1988 and healthcare statutes written in 2001 (before anything like cloud storage was even envisioned) in not how the law works in reality.
They do not have a “legal right” to destroy medical records as the handling of said records is subject to circumstance and exception. If you cannot understand this then this debate is irrelevant.
Are people really saying the AFL aren’t capable of destroying medical records to help them save face or protect them from lawsuits?
No one is saying that
1 Like
They can’t destroy what they don’t have access to.