Resolutions, opinions and reports search tool

The claimant, as holder of parental authority, exercised the right of access to the documentation presented by his underage daughter, which contained data from third parties affected who opposed the processing of data derived from the application for access, which is why the Department dismissed the request for access made by the claimant. The complaint is partially estimated as the Department responded to the request in an extemporaneous manner.

The complaint is partially appreciated, since the Directorate General of Police of the Department of the Interior did not respond in time to the request of the complainant, without it being appropriate to require any action, insofar as the DGP gave a reply adjusted to the right of request, albeit temporarily.

The claimant asks for the rectification of the health data contained in a medical report, but does not provide any evidence to prove the error, the report's optional (and superior) report confirms that the report is correct, accurate and adequate, and the Authority considers that the information entered in the report is not lacking in any logic or meaning, nor inconsistent in view of the other information entered. Disappointment.

The complaint is partially estimated as the Health Department did not respond in time to the request submitted by the complaining party, which was aimed at access to traceability and HC3 for a specific period of time. However, it is not necessary to require the Department to carry out any action since the latter responded extemporaneously to the request and provided the party requesting all documentation held by it.

Disapproval of the claim of guardianship by right to delete a report and other data from the clinical history on the grounds of the optional person.

The claimant requested the removal of certain records of his clinical history which he considered incorrect. It is necessary to partially estimate the claim, since the entity gave an incomplete response, since it only referred to the deletion of any data that might appear in the clinical history of the applicant, without referring to demonstrations about the alleged falseness/incorrection of these data. The entity is required to request the amendment of the application so that the applicant can provide the proof of the alleged incorrections in the said background.

The resolution of the DGP is declared untimely, given that the right to erasure was resolved and notified beyond the 1 month deadline established for the purpose, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance, since the DGP has decided to delete the data of the complainant.

The resolution of the DGP which estimates the request for access to data of the complainant contained in the PF/SIP PFMEN SIP files is declared extemporaneous, without going into other considerations with regard to the substance since the DGP has decided to make the aforementioned right effective.

The entity gave an incomplete response to the claimant, which only referred to the deletion of any data contained in his or her clinical history, without referring to the claimant's statements about the existence of incorrect data in a medical report.

The complaining party initiated the present rights protection procedure before this Authority as it considered that the requested entity gave it the requested information (clinical course of visits of 12.09.22 and 21.09.22) in a manipulated manner. In this regard, it demanded access to the original annotations made by doctors doctors to the clinical course of the two reference visits. Well, in consultation with this Authority, the Hospital Clinico has stated that the information it gave to the complainant, in response to his request, is the original version of the notes that doctors made in the clinical course, and that this documentation has not been manipulated or modified. In this regard, the content of the Hospital's response was transferred to the requesting party, so that it would submit the allegations or evidence it considered relevant, warning it that, if within 10 days it did not submit any writings, it would be understood that the Hospital had fully complied with its application for access. After this period, the complaining party has argued nothing against considering their right of access satisfied, which is why it should be concluded that the information that the Hospital gave to the complainant, in response to his request, was all that was in their power. That being the case, it is appropriate to reject the complaint, because the entity gave a full response within the legally envisaged deadline, to the specific terms of the application.