The East London High Court refused to grant an application for a request for medical records because the request and appeal was vague and poorly completed, without complying with the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000.
The applicant applied to the Department of Health, Eastern Cape for “Copy of his medical records including x-rays, charts and another other relevant info”. The form nowhere referenced even the hospital where the applicant received treatment. The covering letter had more information but referred to the wrong patient. The court said that it is quite plain from the context of PAIA and the manner of access provided for in the Act that the objective of the Act and expectation is that the request form on its own should suffice to generate the documentation requested and that applications in court should be a matter of last resort. Section 78(1) says so. Section 18(1) dictates the form of a request for access to documentation of a public body in peremptory terms. The Department’s PAIA Manual provided that where the request is for medical records certain information was to be provided “to assist the Department to trace the relevant medical records”. The court said that poorly completed request forms (even if there are covering letters) will not meet the cut to satisfy the requirements for court relief. The prejudice to the Department of accepting an improperly completed form is vast both in terms of physical resources that are wasted looking for a record, and the litigation costs it may have to face if the request is refused. The forms are vital to assist the Department’s process and to render a timeous response in the administrative realm so that the matter does not have to go to court. The court observed that, in the East London court, PAIA applications make up a huge number of the applications on the court roll every week and therefore the applications must be looked at carefully and painstakingly to consider whether the applicant is entitled to relief, to avoid abuse of the process and a proliferation of an unfair financial burden on the Department. That does not mean that the Department can fail to provide access or frustrate the constitutional right of access to information where a proper application is made.