The right to the presumption of innocence prevails, since the access to the data of health has not been able to be proved.
01/07/2021
Result of the resolution: Set aside/dismissed
The accusing person exposed that a neighbor, husband of a nurse who worked in the denounced entity, was a connoisseur of its|his|her|their data of health because its|his|her|their woman would have accessed its|his|her|their medical record. It|He|She based its|his|her|their suspicion on some words that they crossed as a result of a discussion|argument between the daughter of the accusing person and the husband of the mentioned nurse.
According to the denounced entity, the auditing of accesses for search of patient did not give the accusing person any register|record of access and no welfare activity carried out to the accusing person figured in its|his|her|their registers|records either. This last affirmation was answered|vouched for by l the same accusing person who he|she affirmed had never visited herself in the denounced Hospital. On the other hand, the expression that it would have made to its|his|her|their data of health to suspect an undue access, does not refer to any diagnosis or datum of health specifies.