Breen v Williams (“Medical Records Access Case”) [1996]

Breen v Williams [1996] HCA 57; (1996) 186 CLR 71

• High Court of Australia
• Judgment date: 6 September 1996
• Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ
• Doctor/patient relationship; Contractual right; Fiduciary duty; Right to know

The case Breen v Williams ([1996] HCA 57) addresses the legal question of whether a patient has the right to access and copy medical records held by their doctor. Here is a detailed summary:

Background of the Case (Breen v Williams)

The appellant, Julie Breen, underwent breast augmentation surgery involving silicone implants in 1977. Subsequent complications led her to consult the respondent, Dr. Cholmondeley W. Williams, a plastic surgeon, who performed a bilateral capsulotomy in 1978.

In the 1980s, Ms. Breen experienced further issues, including silicone leakage, resulting in additional surgeries by other doctors.

In 1993, Breen became involved in a U.S. class action lawsuit against the implant manufacturer and sought access to Dr. Williams’ medical records for litigation purposes. Dr. Williams refused, citing legal ownership of the records and conditioning their release on a liability waiver, which Breen declined.

Legal Claims in Breen v Williams

Ms. Breen argued for her right to access the medical records on the following grounds:

1. Contractual Obligation:

She claimed an implied contractual term requiring the doctor to act in her “best interests” and grant access to her records.

The court rejected this, holding that the doctor-patient contract obliges the doctor to exercise reasonable care and skill, not to grant broad access to records.

2. Proprietary Right:

Breen argued she had a proprietary interest in the information within the records.

The court held that the records, as physical documents, are the property of the doctor. While patients provide information, the resulting records belong to the professional who creates them.

3. Fiduciary Duty:

Breen claimed the doctor-patient relationship imposed a fiduciary obligation on Dr. Williams to allow access.

The court ruled that while the relationship entails trust and confidence, it does not impose a fiduciary duty extending to record access. Fiduciary duties are specific to avoiding conflicts of interest or misuse of patient information, neither of which were at issue here.

Court Judgment

The High Court of Australia upheld the lower court’s ruling, finding no legal basis—whether contractual, proprietary, or fiduciary—for Ms. Breen’s claim to access the records.

The court also rejected the appellant’s broad claim of a “right to know,” emphasizing that while patients are entitled to sufficient medical information to make decisions, this does not translate into a right to inspect medical records.

The court emphasized that:

• Doctors are not required to disclose records unless a direct legal obligation or therapeutic necessity exists.
• Patients may obtain summaries or reports of medical information but not automatic access to physical records.

Key Takeaways

The decision affirmed the limited scope of patient rights concerning medical records in Australia.

It contrasted with Canadian and U.S. perspectives where fiduciary duties and patient rights to access medical records are more expansive.

This particular case highlighted the ownership of medical records by healthcare professionals and the principle that broader patient access rights would require legislative action, not judicial expansion/interpretation of existing laws.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1996/57.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

• McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951): Case Brief
• Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13: Contract Not Concluded
• Teacher v Calder: The Validity of Audits in Business Contracts