Hospital rejects bid for documents to aid court

A ROCKHAMPTON man has had his bid to obtain medical records to assist him in an upcoming discrimination hearing rejected because the documents he sought were deemed to be irrelevant.

Alex Daniel James has made a complaint against the Rockhampton Hospital claiming they breached the Anti-Discrimination Act in the administration of government laws and programs based on his impairment.

Mr James alleges the events took place between January 31, 2012 and June 8, 2012.

The hospital denies the claim.

Mr James applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the Director of Medical Services at the hospital turn over any documents in relation to himself and his partner from between 2004 to 2005.

Mr James, at a hearing earlier this month, claimed the documents were required for the purpose of verifying witness statements to prove allegations made in his statement and to prove the hospital had altered dates with the intent to discriminate at a later date.

He claimed the intended future act was to justify grounds for the removal of children from his care and that of his partner.

The hospital opposed the application on the basis the documents sought were irrelevant and the application did not refer to specific documents.

Furthermore, the hospital claimed the application was an abuse of process and the documents were not for the primary purpose of disclosing relevant information to the tribunal.

The hospital further claimed the requested documents are well before the alleged events took place that are the subject of the complaint and could not be relevant to the proceeding.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Senior Member Clare Endicott agreed and dismissed Mr James' application.

"Mr James purports to make the sought-after documents relevant by alleging that actions by the agents of one of the respondents (the hospital) in 2004 and 2005 were done with a view to set up the basis for a future discriminatory act by that respondent or its agents," she said.

"That proposition is unsupported by any admissions from the respondents or evidence that could give rise to any reasonable inference in favour of the applicant's (Mr James) proposition."