Data Protection Commissioner - complaints and evidence can be arbitrarily altered:

Data Protection Commissioners view is that evidence can be arbitrarily altered.

And, formal statutory complaints can also be arbitrarily altered.

I had accused the Medical Council of arbitrarily altering my complaint and documentary evidence to the opposite to what it said in order to clear Tallaght Hospital's Dr J. Noel - who has left me crippled for life.

Dr Noel told the Medical Council he had offered me immediate treatment which I refused.

I stated Dr Noel had offered me treatment ASAP depending on when a bed became available and my evidence lodged was his hospital letter to my G.P. confirming that. I never received the treatment.

Medical Council internal documents showed they had materially altered what I said to show me agreeing that Dr Noel had offered me immediate treatment which I refused and that I said his letter to my G.P. which I lodged as evidence confirmed this.

Thereby substituting 'I refused treatment' - for - 'I did not get treatment due to Dr Noel's laziness and negligence'.

The Medical Council refused to rectify claiming they had documentary evidence proving what they said and even had their solicitor write to me insisting this. They refused to produce said 'evidence'.

The Information Commissioner's legally binding decision, that can only be varied by the high court, fully backed me and was that I had never said what the Medical Council insisted I had and they did not have the documentary evidence they claimed to have.

The Data Protection Commissioners preliminary view is that the Medical Council's actions of arbitrarily altering my statutory complaint and evidence were fit and proper.

The fact that a regularity body could even entertain such thoughts proves a serious lack of fairness and integrity because it formally denies due process by refusing a party the right to put their side of matters. It also means that integrity and ethics are purely discretionary.

What it also factually means is that the Medical Council has a right to alter complaints and evidence as they see fit - in my case, altered to clear the doctor who has left me crippled.

Dr Noel is guilty of, at least, negligence and falsification and once the Medical Council indulged in alterations, my legal Right to lodge the complaints I wished to have considered was illegally removed.

Up to now all this is approved by Prof. F. Wood, the Medical Council's president, who stands by the decision to clear Dr Noel and his submission that I'm a time wasting, lying patient who refused treatment - despite the evidence of his letter to me G.P.

Prof. Wood also refused to give me assurances that no one with a connection with Dr Noel or Tallaght Hospital would be involved in my complaints.

There's also the damage the false picture Dr Noel has painted of me adversely influencing others dealing with me [my ambulance transport to appointments withdrawn etc] especially as he is backed by the Medical Council, who are backed by the Data Protection Commissioner.

One must remember the Medical Council is a quasi-judicial body set up to protect patients and set standards for the medical profession.

Unfortunately in matters before the Data Protection Commissioner she claims to have documentary evidence I said things I deny saying, but like the Medical Council she refuses to produce said 'evidence'.

Data Protection Commissioner a full official review:

I have been formally informed that Ms Dixon, the Data Protection Commissioner, has ordered an immediate full review of matters and has appointed Mr John Keyes, Assistant Commissioner & Head of Investigations to personally undertake this.

The review is to commence immediately and a substantive response is promised within the next two weeks.

A corrupt Data Protection Commissioner in Tallaght Hospital's pocket:

A corrupt Data Protection Commissioner in Tallaght Hospital's pocket.

Breaks the law and actively aids Tallaght Hospital's criminal negligence in leaving me crippled for life, virtually housebound and in constant pain.

The first formal complaint I lodged with the Data Protection Commissioner against Tallaght Hospital was for passing to third parties, against my wishes and without my permission, my confidential file of over 200 records - included my G.P.'s confidential correspondence and confidential details regarding my next of kin, again without the legally required permission.

[The hospital's illegal actions were on the express personal orders of their CEO Ms E. Hardiman]

My complaint was refused and according to the Commissioner Tallaght Hospital had done no wrong and had not breached the Data Protection Act.

My second formal complaint I lodged with the Data Protection Commissioner against Tallaght Hospital was for passing my medical records to third parties, without my permission and against my wishes.

[The hospital's illegal actions were on the express personal orders of their CEO Ms E. Hardiman]

I said "Matters are made much more serious as certain medical records are proven, by other hospital records etc, to be falsified and I'm left crippled." and referring to my first complaint I said "You refused my complaint on the grounds what I complained about would not be a breach of the Data Protection Acts"

My second complaint was refused by default as it was ignored despite my numerous chasers which were acknowledged.

Everyone knows how confidential medical records are and that they cannot be released without the patients express consent.

Again the Commissioner breaks the law to cover-up for Tallaght Hospital, Ms Hardiman and Dr Noel - especially to ensure no public questions would be asked regarding the proven falsification of the medical records by Dr Noel.

Proof of the Data Protection Commissioner's wrong doing:

Two contradictory statutory rulings to cover-up for Tallaght Hospital:

My complaint is dismissed on the grounds that Tallaght Hospital's conduct did not constitute a data breach while the hospital is 'privately' informed that their conduct did constitute a data breach.

Internal records I obtained show that during the period between my two complaints the Data Protection Commissioner had 'private' conversations with Tallaght Hospital and these indicate not only that the hospital were told by the Data Protection Commissioner that they had breached the Data Protection Act by releasing my documents but that the hospital already knew they had breached the act. There was even talk of 'wilful breach of the act'.

Very significant is that it's shown that the hospital looked upon these matters as of low importance.

Clearly the hospital knew they would be protected by a corrupt Data Protection Commissioner - well the Commissioner knew I was left crippled for life but her only concern was to deny me my Rights and protect the people who left me crippled.

Being virtually housebound and in constant pain I wrote to Ms Dixon one last time basically asking her to do the job she's paid to do and said "Tallaght Hospital and your actions set a very serious precedent regarding patient confidentiality in general and medical records in particular and also the Right to Privacy."

Ms Dixon completely ignored me and given the documentary evidence, the ignored opportunities to rectify, the blatant violations of the Data Protection Acts, one must ask, what incentives had Ms H. Dixon?

Serious offences against public interest by the Data Protection Commissioner:

While everyone else in Ireland has the Right to doctor/patient confidenality the Commissioner rules that I don't have that Right and the only possible outcome of that is to protect Ms Hardiman and Tallaght Hospital from criminal sanctions and also aid their cover-up of criminal negligence in leaving me crippled for life. One must ask what perverted sick mentality is at work here.

In fact and given the overall situation, it's reasonable to say that the Commissioner has committed criminal offences - after all, the Commissioner told me that no breaches had been committed while telling the hospital that they had committed breaches.

Although they had refused my complaints illegally they did indicate on just one occasion [through their senior compliance officer Mr Alan O'Grady] that they were willing to discuss matters - but only verbally and without withdrawing their perverse decision.

# Of note is that this type of corrupt conduct to protect the people who have left me cripple is not unusual.

The Medical Council broke the law etc in order to dismiss my complaint - after a long arduous fight, during which their solicitor wrote to me denying any improprieties, a legally binding decision which only the High Court could set aside [case 120243] was made by the Freedom of Information Commissioner. In this the Medical Council were forced to acknowledge that they had incorrectly described my complaint, that I'd never made the allegation they had claimed I had, that evidence they had claimed they had to support their claim did not exist. In fact they never had any reason to believe I had made such an allegation.

# I have provided [through info@dataprotection.ie] Ms Helen Dixon the Data Protection Commissioner with the link to this article in order to ensure that she has the opportunity to respond.