Carter (a pseudonym) v Australian Air League Incorporated & Anor [2024] VSC 95 (publication pending).
With thanks to Mathisha Panagoda for noting this interlocutory decision. There was an objection by the plaintiff to a subpoena issued by the first defendant for his entire Medicare history. That objection was ultimately dismissed.
The court noted that although a substantial volume of medical records had been produced, there were gaps in the evidence. A number of examples were given ([5]) such as the names of various doctors and the treatment they provided. The Court noted at [9]:
The dispute between the parties is whether AAL has a legitimate forensic purpose in issuing the subpoena directed at Medicare seeking, in effect, the plaintiff’s entire medical history (‘Medicare records’). AAL says that the Medicare records will be relevant to both causation and quantum of loss. In relation to causation, details of the plaintiff’s medical history will shed light upon the question of whether the alleged abuse was the sole or primary cause of the plaintiff’s psychiatric injuries. The Medicare records will also assist AAL to evaluate the plaintiff’s claim for past and future medical expenses, and past and future economic loss.
The plaintiff submitted that the scope of the subpoena was impermissibly broad, and that AAL is merely speculating that the Medicare records might assist its case. While accepting that the subpoena is expressed in broad terms, the court noted that there is evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was suffering from mental health problems since about the mid 1980s, such that the Medicare records may disclose treatment from that time.
At [22] the court held:
I consider that, in the circumstances of this case, there is a legitimate forensic purpose in issuing a subpoena directed at obtaining access to the Medicare records, which will in turn assist AAL to identify further documents which, if obtained, will either support or undermine the plaintiff’s case.
The plaintiff’s claim, like many others, involves a claim that the consequences of the abuse were significant and lifechanging, with his claim for damages based upon a contention that the trajectory of his life and career has been
fundamentally changed, for the worse, as a consequence of the alleged abuse. Claims of this nature necessarily open a plaintiff’s medical history up to some degree of scrutiny ([24]).
[BillMaddensWordpress #2233]
Bill Madden's Wordpress 