WB v RB is an important judgment regarding medical records disclosure. A husband requested access to his wife’s bipolar disorder health records for child custody proceedings. The court ordered the clinic to reveal the treatment details while respecting confidentiality for sensitive therapy notes. The WB v RB ruling establishes a precedent for medical records disclosure in custody cases, emphasising the importance of privacy and the best interests of the child.

Who should care about WB v RB and why?

  • Hospitals and other healthcare providers that handle sensitive medical records. By understanding the balance between patient privacy and public interests (e.g., child custody cases), you can guide your policies and procedures for disclosure.
  • Banks and other financial institutions that collect and process financial data, which fall under POPIA. By applying data minimisation principles and information security within your practices, you can ensure compliance and build trust with customers.
  • Schools and universities that manage student data, including academic records and potentially sensitive information like medical or disciplinary records. The judgment’s emphasis on balancing privacy with children’s best interests (e.g., in disciplinary proceedings) can be relevant to your data handling practices.
  • Lawyers and legal teams that deal with sensitive information in different capacities. By understanding the legal landscape around privacy and disclosure, you can help plan legal strategies and advise clients adequately on privacy.
  • Social media platforms, e-commerce websites, and other online services that collect large amounts of user data. The judgment’s emphasis on data minimisation and transparency can guide your data collection practices and user consent procedures.
  • Public departments responsible for grants, healthcare, or law enforcement often handle sensitive personal data. Familiarity with the balance between privacy and public interest (e.g., protecting vulnerable individuals) can inform their data access and disclosure policies.

What could you do about it?

Our insights on WB v RB medical records disclosure

This case indirectly touches on POPIA, but it doesn’t directly deal with its provisions. Here’s why:

  • POPIA focuses on the control and processing of personal information by organisations. The court order involves the disclosure of medical records held by a healthcare facility, which falls under POPIA’s healthcare sections.
  • the case emphasises balancing the right to privacy with the best interests of the child. POPIA also recognises the right to privacy. However, its application in this context would involve determining if the clinic’s disclosure to the appointed psychologist complies with POPIA’s conditions for the lawful processing of personal information. This would include assessing aspects like consent, purpose limitation, and proportionality.
  • the court order outlined specific information to be disclosed in the medical report. This aligns with POPIA’s principle of minimality, suggesting that only the necessary information relevant to the case should be disclosed.

Digest

WB v RB Facts

  • A married couple in South Africa was undergoing a divorce and had an ongoing dispute over child custody.
  • The husband believed his wife’s bipolar disorder diagnosis and treatment history were relevant to her ability to care for their children.
  • He sought access to her medical records from the clinic where she received treatment.
  • The wife argued that disclosing her complete medical records, especially therapy notes, would violate her right to privacy and potentially discourage others from seeking mental health treatment.

Reasoning

The court in WB v RB  said there’s a need for disclosure in the case, but not in the way it was requested. It recognised that Section 14 of the NHA and Health Professions Council rules prevent the release of information without proper consent or a court order. The court emphasised the importance of finding a balance between different rights, like privacy and the well-being of the children. Even though medical records are sensitive, the court has the authority to decide how much information should be disclosed. It’s aware of the individual circumstances of the case, particularly the first respondent’s privacy concerns due to her diagnosis. The court wants to ensure fair treatment and protect the best interests of the children by carefully managing the disclosure of information.

W.B v R.B order

  • The manager of Riverview Manor had to provide a medical report to either a clinical or forensic psychologist appointed by the husband disclosing the wife’s medical information.
  • Each party was directed to pay their own costs.

Details of W.B v R.B