The plaintiff, who was treated as an in-patient at the defendant's facility, brought a claim for damages against the defendant and two doctors employed by the defendant. The claim could not initially be served on one of the doctors at the clinic's address because the plaintiff's legal representative had not given the correct name. After the name was corrected, service was successful. Nevertheless, the plaintiff demanded information from the clinic about the private address of the doctor concerned. This was refused by the defendant.
The district court dismissed the complaint. The Regional Court ordered the defendant to provide information because anonymity was not compatible with the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. It allowed the appeal.
The VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible, inter alia, for questions of the protection of personality and medical liability. On appeal by the defendant, the VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice overturned the appeal judgement, dismissed the action and essentially gave the following reasons for this:
It is true that, in principle, the patient has a right to inspect the medical records concerning him or her against the doctor and the hospital, even outside of a legal dispute, insofar as they concern records of objective physical findings and reports on treatment measures (medication, surgery, etc.). The clinic provider is also in principle required to inform the patient of the name of the doctor treating him. However, the plaintiff did not need the doctor's private address to conduct the civil proceedings because the statement of claim could be served at the clinic's address. The provision of information is also precluded by the data protection provision of section 32(1) sentence 1 of the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). The provision allows the employer to collect, process and use data for the purposes of the employment relationship. However, the employer is generally not entitled to pass on personal data collected for purposes of the employment relationship to third parties. Since the data was collected for the purpose of the employment relationship, the transfer to third parties is generally excluded as a use for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected, in accordance with the principle of purpose limitation applicable to data protection. The forwarding of private communication data to third parties requires the consent of the person concerned or special authorisation by a legal provision.
Judgment of the BGH of 20 January 2015 - VI ZR 137/14
Lower courts:
Weißwasser Local Court - Judgment of 08 August 2013 - 6 C 58/13
Görlitz Regional Court - Judgment of 14 February 2014 - 2 S 174/13
Source: Press release of the BGH
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2015
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist lawyer for information technology law
E-mail: info@goldberg.de
