Hospitals are not obliged to investigate serious complaints:

Tallaght Hospital refused to interview their staff member I gave as a witness.

Ms H. Dixon rules that the hospital were right to refuse to interview my witness:

To cover up their culpability in leaving me crippled for life by Tallaght Hospital and their Dr J. Noel, the hospital claims I did not follow Dr Noel's instructions and my claims to have done so are lies. The hospital still stands by this, supported by the Data Protection Commissioner, Ms H. Dixon.

In rebuttal of the hospital's claims I identified, as my witness/proof, the staff member I had dealt with to support my complaint to the Hospital.

From 2010 to 2018 all documentation released shows that this staff member was never interviewed for the 'investigations' by the hospital or the Data Protection Commissioner and, obviously, had never denied dealing with me.

Ms H. Dixon has now closed my complaint to her, ruling that the fact that Tallaght Hospital had never involved the staff member I identified, was acceptable and fair process.

Ms Dixon is factually ruling that the hospital [any hospital] does not have to investigate very serious complaints that are backed by evidence - even though my health has been seriously damaged.

Justifying the exclusion of the identified staff member it's indicated to me that failure to interview the identified staff member is of no consequence as it's up to me to prove I'm not a liar and not up to the hospital to prove their claims that I'm a liar.

Ms Dixon insists that it's not good enough for me to identify and say, this is the staff member I dealt with. Ms Dixon says I have to prove I dealt with this staff member and it's not up to the hospital to speak to the staff member.

This clear bias conduct of the Ms Dixon is nothing new, but a question comes to mind - why exclude this hospital staff member for 8 years if she does not support my claims?

Ms Dixon has yet again made her stance very clear, she will protect the hospital and ensure they are not accountable - Thereby confirming what a coroner went on record as saying, that Tallaght Hospital “sounds like a very dangerous place to be for anybody, let alone a sick patient”.

What I and other pensioners are being told is that unless you have the finances to launch legal action, you have no Rights.

Data Protection Commissioner cites non-existent evidence:

 Ms H. Dixon claims to have evidence that does not exist - again

Refuses to produce 'evidence' and let me defend myself:

Data Protection Commissioner Ms H. Dixon claims she has documentary evidence [signed by me] that proves I've changed my story regarding Tallaght Hospital and lied.

I have denied that I have ever altered my claims from day one and therefore she cannot have documentation, created by me, to support her claims.

But like the Medical Council she refuses to produce said evidence and refuses me the opportunity to respond to it and defend myself.

She informs me that she has closed the file on this, yet another of my complaints and I'm therefore not entitled to a formal decision on my complaint as promised by the Data Protection Act.

I therefore say she has falsified evidence - just as the legal decisions proved the Medical council had done.

Unfortunately unlike the Medical Council, the Information Commissioner does not cover her, so I cannot force her hand and she uses her falsehoods to help Tallaght Hospital cover-up leaving me seriously disabled for life.

Everything else aside - I'm in my 9th month of being housebound because of Tallaght Hospital and their Dr J. Noel, but Ms Dixon does not see her job as to uphold my Rights and the law, rather to protect those who have crippled me.

# In another case - Since 2012 the Data Protection Commissioner has refused to protect my Rights relating to the illegal release of my medical records by Tallaght Hospital to outside 3rd parties against my wishes.

Throughout the free world including Ireland these Rights are enshrined in law to protect patients - but Ms Dixon makes an exception in my case and breaks the law to protect Tallaght Hospital and Ms E. Hardiman.

Tallaght Hospital, supported by Ms H. Dixon, rely on records that don't exist

Tallaght Hospital, supported by Ms H. Dixon, rely on records that don't exist

Refuse to produce letters they claim they wrote to me:

Ms Dixon the Data Protection Commissioner [D.P.C.] informed me that I had been twice given the written opportunity, by Tallaght Hospital, to object to them handing over my confidential medical records [c200 documents] to non-medical outside third parties and as I'd failed to object, they handed over my medical records.

As I had no knowledge of any such notifications to which I failed to respond/object to, and as if they existed they should have already been released to me under previous Freedom of Information [FoI] requests, I made a formal FOI request to the hospital.

This was made the more important as Ms Dixon had refused to give me sight of said documents and I believed they did not exist.

The hospital requested I supply proof of identification and I referred them to my certified birth cert previously lodged with and accepted by them.

They informed that that was not good enough and requested I supply current identification [a driver’s license or passport] and until I do that they would not process my request. I don't have a driver's licence or passport.

Clearly D.P.C. and the hospital are working together, after all, if the hospital did write to me and I failed to respond, as claimed, what's the problem of producing said letters?

Exist or not, the letters would not suffice in law as a patient has to give permission, nothing less is legally acceptable.

This coupled with the D.P.C. refusing to protect my Rights regarding my medical records can only help the hospital get away with leaving me crippled.

This is not the only time that claims have been made that documentation exists but all parties refuse to produce them.

Clearly Ms Dixon and the hospital will, not for only time, make whatever false claims are necessary to dismiss my valid and serious complaints - just like the Medical Council did as proven by the Information Commissioner's legally binding decision. 

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'.

Medical Council's solicitors party to a cover-up:

Falsified medical records - Medical Council's solicitors party to a cover-up:

The Medical Council and Dr J. Noel's falsified medical records

It's now over a year since I made formal requests for records/documentation to the Medical Council and my request to the Data Protection Commissioner is still outstanding, the following is based upon the records in my possession - although it's clear that records are being withheld.

It was decided that Dr Noel had no case to answer even though his medical records of 1/4/10 contradict his letter of 1/4/10 received by my G.P. - a letter that supports my claims regarding what treatment he offered me.

The Medical Council rejected my complaint that Dr J. Noel of Tallaght Hospital had falsified the medical records for 1/4/10. The following is proven by official documentation.

[1] Although his letter confirmed he had offered me treatment ASAP depending on when a bed became available Dr Noel told the Medical Council's Ms Amanda Mc Guinness that he wanted his letter of 1/4/10 to my G.P. to be read not as that but as he had actually offered me immediate treatment which I refused.

[2] The Medical Council's solicitor Ms Finola O'Dwyer certified internally and put forward as evidence that Dr Noel's letter of 1/4/10 to my G.P. did confirm he had offered me immediate treatment and that I agreed with that - a double proven falsehood.

[3] The Medical Council's solicitor Mr Diarmuid Coen certified that they did have this documentary evidence, that I had agreed with Dr Noel and all their actions were lawful. He also indicated that they were accepting Dr Noel's medical records of 1/4/10 as being true and rejected Dr Noel's letter to my G.P. which he had written at the consultation on 1/4/10 in Tallaght Hospital.

[4] The Information Commissioner's legally binding decision was that the Council did not have the evidence they claimed they had, that I had not agreed with Dr Noel and they had materially incorrectly described my complaint.

Despite accepting this legally binding decision/ruling the Council stand by their decision to clear Dr Noel - proving that was their intention all along no matter what documentary evidence I had.

Two major points are, that Dr Noel was never asked to explain why his letter to my G.P. that confirms my claims and written at the 1/4/10 consultation contradicts his medical records he claims were written at the exact same time.

And,

The Medical Council never explained why they rejected the evidence Dr Noel's letter of 1/4/10 written to and received by my G.P.

As the Medical Council sets the standards for the medical profession this proves that integrity is only optional for the profession as it is for the Council and their staff.

I'm left crippled for life and now in my 7th month of being totally housebound.

I have given Prof. Freddie Wood and Ms Finola O'Dwyer the opportunity to respond.

Social workers know better than doctors:

Social workers know better than, and contradict doctors:

Social workers  refuse any help.

Celine O'Connor, social work team leader, has confirmed that they will not help me in any way.

Despite my challenge she has not altered their indicated stance that I'm not housebound, extremely immobile and in constant pain.

Despite the medical and physical evidence and my G.P. certifying that I'm housebound, they stand by their opinion that I can get out and about.

Clearly they are of the opinion that I'm faking my serious condition and they have declined to meet with me.

Just as clearly - a pensioner whose Rights have been violated and left crippled is of little importance when it comes to protecting 'important' people. I've now totally housebound and in pain while these people make 'excuses' in order not to help me in order not to rock the establishment boat.

I've informed my G. P. that due to this extremely unprofessional conduct it would be unwise to have any further dealings with social workers.

Data Protection Commissioners manipulation:

Further covering-up for Tallaght Hospital by Ms H. Dixon. Evidence manipulated.

After over 4 years - No action to be taken - it's all a big mistake.

[My previous articles set out the details] The illegally released file contains hospital falsifications painting me as a time wasting patient who missed appointments who also refused treatment and those falsifications contradict original hospital documents. The falsifications passed the blame from the hospital on to me for my crippled state.

Now Ms Dixon's written statutory decision, although ruling in my favour, is nothing more than a propaganda document covering up the deliberate nature of the hospital's and in particular Ms E. Hardiman's law breaking, so as to not prosecute.

Ms Dixon's U-turn:

While this statutory decision records in different parts that my complaint had been made to the Data Protection Commissioner [D.P.C.] on 7th Dec 2012 and that D.P.C. investigation started on 23rd Sept 2016 there's no mention that this gap of nearly 4 years was caused by D.P.C. refusing my complaint insisting that the hospital had done no wrong in releasing my medical records, against my wishes, to outside third parties.

The rewriting of history:

The hospital has two sets of records - the earlier set supports my claims and puts the blame on to them. The second later set contradicts their early records and passes the blame on to me. Now the hospital avails themselves of Ms Dixon's statutory decision to further rewrite history to put themselves further in the clear.

Ms Dixon records that in December 2016 she outlined the preliminary findings of her investigation to me. All she told me was that the hospital had violated data law, there was absolutely nothing regarding the 'propaganda' below, so I had no opportunity to highlight the falsehoods as I've done here in this article - but from correspondence she must have been aware of them when making her decision.

All these 'facts' Ms Dixon records in her statutory decision make it out to be all a big mistake on the part of the hospital and Ms Hardiman. Everything was done for the best of intentions - so no prosecutions. But it's all based on these proven [by documentation] falsehoods etc. All a big mistake, while I'm left crippled for life and no action to be taken.

As I write this article I've been completely housebound for over a month and usually in considerable pain, yet the only actions I see are to cover-up.

Also refer to my article "A corrupt Data Protection Commissioner in Tallaght Hospital's pocket." which this reinforces.

During 2012 and in order not to answer my complaints and not to deal with me Tallaght Hospital, specifically the then CEO Ms E. Hardiman, deliberately broke the law and sent, against my wishes, my medical records to outside 3rd parties for 'review'.

Right up to present the hospital, specifically their present CEO Mr Slevin, refuse to answer my complaints on the grounds that an outside 3rd party is undertaking a full review based on the illegal release [unfair processing] of my medical records etc - Ms H. Dixon [D.P.C.] is aware of this and in fact refused my request that my illegally released records be returned to me by the 3rd parties.

For years the hospital and Ms Dixon have been fully aware that the law had been deliberately broken but Ms Dixon has and continues to abuse her authority to protect Ms Hardiman, Tallaght Hospital and staff.

Having refused to accept my complaint [made 2012] for 4 years with the ludicrous grounds that the hospital and Ms Hardiman had every right to pass my medical records etc to outside 3rd parties against my wishes and this had not violated the data laws - while the hospital and D.P.C. had agreed privately in 2012 that the hospital had broken the law.

[I wrote, for example, to D.P.C. in 2012 & 2013 regarding this but was totally ignored. Ignoring reasonable but awkward correspondence seems to be policy],

Ms Dixon, having been caught out did a U-turn, investigated my complaint and issued a statutory decision in March 2017.

Ms Dixon ruled that the hospital [Ms Hardiman] had broken the law as they had "no legal basis for disclosing your sensitive personal information" etc.

Despite this and having been given the proof that Ms Hardiman deliberately broke the law and the hospital was profiting [and still are] from the illegal acts [there can be no 'review' based on illegal acts] my request for prosecution was refused by default. Ms Dixon had at first denied she had the power to prosecute but under my pressure admitted she had.

Ms Dixon's statutory decision [she has refused any discussion]:

# She highlights my refusal of the hospitals apology - but says nothing about their refusal to rectify and answer my complaints or them still standing by their claim that there's an ongoing 'review' [based on the illegally released records] as a reason.

# She highlights the hospitals claim to have spent 2 years trying to resolve my complaint - but says nothing regarding them refusing to answer my complaints, both the 5 year old ones and more recent ones. Refusals based on the illegal release of my file.

# She says nothing and does nothing regarding the hospital continually profiting from their deliberate violation of the Data Protection Act.

Hiding the proof of Ms Hardiman's deliberate law breaking:

# Ms Dixon, while ignoring my request to prosecute and while acknowledging my claim that the violations of the Data Protection Act were deliberate [as opposed to the hospital's claim it was all a mistake], failed to record Ms Hardiman's two written requests to me for my explicit permission to release my records to outside 3rd parties for review [proving the deliberate nature of Ms Hardiman's actions].

This is very telling in the light of Ms Dixon being aware that the hospital's Ms Hardiman deliberately broke the law in releasing my medical records in order to disseminate proven false documents, and -

Non- existent 'notifications':

# Ms Dixon cites, more than once, that the hospital had written to me twice advising me that they would now be referring matters to outside 3rd parties for review. That's false - these notifications don't exist and I have asked Ms Dixon to produce these documents or to explain. So again we have documentation 'invented' to suit purpose - just like the Medical Council, who were forced to admit this via the Information Commissioner's legally binding statutory decision.

False claim that I never objected to my records being sent to outside 3rd parties:

# Ms Dixon records that I never objected to the hospital's [Ms Hardiman's] suggestion that they send my records to outside 3rd parties for review. That's false - as Ms E. Hardiman [then Tallaght Hospital CEO] personally wrote to me twice specifically requesting my permission to release my records and stating that once I'd given my consent she would recommend an outside 3rd party review of said records. Twice I wrote to Ms Hardiman declining to give my permission.

Ms Dixon fully accepts this falsehood to exonerate the hospital and Ms Hardiman of any deliberate intent.

I have asked Ms Dixon to inform me what she intends to do about these most serious matters and what rectification is to be offered to me.

Crippled for life due to negligence and falsification justified:

# Ms Dixon records that the hospital had released my confidential records to outside 3rd parties in order to care for my health and for openness and transparency.

# openness and transparency - D.P.C. is fully aware that Tallaght Hospital refused to give me a copy of the file they illegally released but lets the hospital's falsehood go as it paints them in a 'good' light.

# health - the hospital attempts to justify [illegally] releasing my file by saying, as recorded by Ms Dixon, it was their responsibility as a hospital to provide as far as possible for my health, happiness and welfare as a patient.

Yet they have left me crippled for life, falsified documentation [contradicting other hospital records] refused to answer my complaints and ignored my letters etc.

Ms Dixon is aware that the deliberate violations of the Data Protection Act was used to disseminate falsifications to 3rd parties For example, some of which helped Dr J. Noel deny the truth of his own letter and contradict what he had told my G.P. to cover-up for negligence that left me, a patient, crippled for life.

Looking at my longstanding and ongoing situation it's easy to see why our health service is so bad and getting worse - patients have no protection as hospitals and their staff etc are unaccountable, even to the extent that they can break the law and be covered-up for.

My complaints, original and others, remain unanswered - proving that Tallaght Hospital, their staff etc are unaccountable.

I'm left crippled for life, virtually housebound and in constant pain and all Ms Dixon can think of is to cover-up for the hospital, their staff and Ms E. Hardiman in particular.

I have offered Ms Dixon the opportunity to respond and substantiate the propaganda by sending her a link to my article.

Ms Dixon had and has the opportunity to respond, with evidence, if she believes anything I have published is incorrect or untrue.

Matters are so serious that if she does not avail of the opportunity it can only be accepted that she agrees with everything in this and other articles.