District health boards breach of man’s privacy costs $40k
A man has been given $40,000 after two District Health Boards breached his privacy, using details about his life and terminal brain cancer against his wife’s employment dispute.
Wellington DJ Richard Mills was diagnosed with a terminal form of brain cancer in October 2017 and was being treated by Capital & Coast District Health Board (CCDHB), while his wife Tracey Jacobs was employed at Hutt Valley District Health Board (HVDHB) as a medical typist.
She was working reduced hours because of her own health problems when Mills had a seizure. Jacobs took leave to look after him when employees at the HVDHB took screenshots of Mills’ Facebook page that showed he continued to work following his operation. It also used notes from a telephone discussion with a CCDHB social worker (Employee X), about Mills’ condition, noting Jacobs’ care responsibilities had been ‘‘overstated’’.
A Human Rights Review Tribunal decision found the DHBs were in breach of Mills’ privacy by disclosing personal information about him, awarding him $20,000 in damages from both health boards.
Tension had risen between Jacobs and the HVDHB which escalated when a Givealittle page was set up on the couple’s behalf. It said Jacobs was made redundant but that was not the case.
Jacobs, unaware her employer had noted this on her file, went to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) after difficulties arose in her seeking leave to care for Mills.
‘‘At this stage, mistrust of Mrs Mills arose on the part of the HVDHB. It had advice and medical certificates from Mrs Mills stating that she needed fulltime leave to care for her terminally ill husband.
‘‘On the other hand, the HVDHB had seen Mr Mills’ own Facebook posts showing that he was working around the country.
‘‘All of these concerns were capable of ready answers but neither Mrs Mills nor Mr Mills were approached directly and asked for their responses.’’
Jacobs asked Employee X to write a letter about what she and Mills were going through during her husband’s treatment for her ERA proceedings. Mills gave permission for the letter to have information about his treatment.
Jacobs’ manager, referred to in documents as Ms Ririnui, contacted Employee X about the letter, which claimed she aimed to clarify Mills’ needs in order to understand what it meant for Jacobs’ responsibilities.
Employee X told Ririnui he needed permission from Mills to talk to her; however, Ririnui alleged Mills had given permission to talk about his illness, as mentioned in the letter.
‘‘As a consequence, Employee X agreed to continue with the discussion and to answer some questions,’’ the decision said.
Ririnui made a file note which said Mills received occupational therapy and physiotherapy. She also wrote down Mills did not require a needs assessment, and he could do things on his own and be left alone.
‘‘The tribunal accepts that in continuing with the call Employee X was well-intentioned and wanted to help Mrs Mills in her employment dispute.’’
It was only in the Hutt Valley DHB’s response to Jacobs’ ERA proceedings did the couple learn Mills’ health had been discussed on the phone and his Facebook page had been used to allege his wife had misrepresented his care needs.
Mills complained to the Privacy Commissioner in March 2018, alleging both DHBs had breached his privacy.
‘‘All of these concerns were capable of ready answers but neither Mrs Mills nor Mr Mills were approached directly and asked for their responses.’’ Employment Relations Authority