Though the meeting at the doctor’s office was held in dispute being the point of divergence from the two statements, the hearing managed to establish that at least both the doctor and the patient accurately identified each other due to recollected encounters at the hospital’s ER.
Apparently, the violation indicated that no authorization to examine was given to the defendant by the plaintiff such that factual details of results may not be divulged to the third party – company or employer of the patient – unless her full consent was granted. To help settle the issue, it was found that a form from the side of the third party had been signed by the patient worker and it particularly reflected that “she understood her medical record would form part of the company’s permanent record of her employment (Can. Fam. Physician, 790).” Her decision to have done so by signing was taken into account as a proper authorization and as an additional relief to the direction of the case, the doctor presented evidence wherein the medical documents handed over to the employer merely consisted of the information on the normal x-ray which the patient herself supplied the physician with. Moreover, the defending party proved innocence toward the alleged breach of confidentiality by showing the court an available note which manifested the patient’s written compliance to be examined by the physician. A portion of the defendant’s query about “indigestion” was responded to with “not now” by the plaintiff and this served another indispensable proof of the event of their conference within the doctor’s premise (Can. Fam. Physician).
The judge, accordingly, recognized that there emerged a cause of action when the plaintiff conveyed upset feelings on the basis of her misguided understanding of the breach of trust which she suspected to have occurred between her and the defendant.