The plaintiff, who has been hospitalized in the defendant's facility, claims damages for these and two doctors employed by her. Initially, one of the doctors could not file the lawsuit under the clinic's name because the plaintiff's representative had not given the name correctly. After correcting the name, the delivery was successful. Nevertheless, the plaintiff requested information from the clinic about the private address of the doctor concerned. This was rejected by the defendant.
The district court dismissed the action. The district court has condemned the defendant for information, because anonymity is not compatible with the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. It allowed the revision.
The VI, which is responsible for matters such as personal protection and medical liability. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has annulled the appeal judgment on the appeal of the defendant, dismissed the action and substantiated this essentially as follows:
It is true that the patient is also entitled to access to the medical records relating to him / her in relation to the doctor and the hospital, as far as they concern records of objective physical findings and reports of treatment measures (medication, surgery, etc.). The hospital operator is also basically required to inform the patient of the name of the doctor treating him. However, the plaintiff did not need the physician's private address to conduct the civil litigation because the application could be served under the clinic's name. The provision of information is also precluded by the data protection provision of § 32 para. 1 sentence 1 Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG). The scheme allows the employer to collect, process and use data for employment purposes. However, the employer is in principle not entitled to forward personal data that has been collected for employment purposes to third parties. Since the data has been collected for the purpose of the employment relationship, the transfer to third parties is in principle excluded from the purpose of the purpose of the data protection obligation. On the contrary, the forwarding of private communication data to third parties requires the consent of the data subject or the special permission by a legal provision.
Judgment of the 20. January 2015 - VI ZR 137 / 14
District Court Weißwasser - judgment of the 08. August 2013 - 6 C 58 / 13
Görlitz district court - judgment of the 14. February 2014 - 2 S 174 / 1