Australia, July 3 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 3:

1. The applicant, Mr Charlie Adams, seeks administrative review of a decision of the respondent, the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC), in relation to an application for access to certain information lodged by him on 13 December 2024.

2. The access application sought information regarding the investigation and handling of Mr Adams' complaint against a health practitioner. The application was made pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (the GIPA Act).

3. By letter dated 20 December 2024, the HCCC wrote to Mr Adams and advised that his application was not a valid application under to s 43 of GIPA Act. Mr Adams requested an internal review of this decision. The internal reviewer conducted a review and made a decision dated 17 January 2025, affirming the original decision. Mr Adams lodged an application for review on 3 February 2025. There is no dispute, and I am satisfied, that the application for review was lodged within the prescribed period and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct this review under s 30 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act)

4. Mr Adams represented himself and Ms Boehm, legal officer, represented the HCCC. Procedural directions were made by the Tribunal for submissions and evidence and, on the day before the hearing, Mr Adams notified the Tribunal about a change in scope in relation to his request. This change in scope was discussed at the hearing and is outlined below.

5. I have affirmed the decision under review for the following reasons.

Background

6. On or about 9 February 2024, Mr Adams submitted a complaint form to the HCCC about a health practitioner. Mr Adams contends that he requested the health practitioner to complete a medical certificate for Centrelink, being a request on a form referred to as "SU-684". He further contends that this form is used to notify Centrelink of a new medical condition or update on an existing medical condition. In his complaint, Mr Adams submitted that the form SU-684 requires the health practitioner to report on the diagnosis and medical facts relating to the condition of the person who is the subject of the form.

7. The health practitioner did not complete the form at Mr Adams' request. Mr Adams complained that the health practitioner wrongly claimed that Mr Adams had requested a Centrelink medical certificate for a three-month work exemption. Mr Adams further complained that the failure of the health practitioner to complete this form on his behalf affected his capacity to work or his eligibility for benefits.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1972de6618fb5bc44af55d52)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.