The Court of Justice of the State of Ceará (TJCE) upheld a decision rejecting a claim for moral damages in a case involving the use of medical records in labor proceedings. The plaintiff alleged violations of privacy, the Medical Ethics Code, and Brazil's General Data Protection Law (LGPD), due to the hospital's presentation of her medical records as evidence in its legal defense, without prior consent. According to the ruling, the use of the documents was deemed legitimate, as it was supported by the regular exercise of the right to legal defense. In this case, the hospital used the records to demonstrate that the condition alleged by the plaintiff (a herniated disc) was not work-related but had resulted from a car accident and a fall.

The court ruling emphasized that both the Medical Ethics Code and the LGPD allow the use of sensitive data, such as medical records, when necessary for defense in judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceedings, provided the principles of necessity, adequacy, and proportionality are observed. The court made clear that medical confidentiality, while constitutionally protected, may be qualified in situations where the right to defense is at stake, and that no evidence of abuse or misuse of purpose by the hospital was established.

The ruling also noted the absence of proof of actual harm to the plaintiff, concluding that the mere submission of medical records to a court for defensive purposes does not constitute a privacy violation sufficient to give rise to a right to compensation. The court found that, beyond the absence of any breach of the LGPD or the Medical Ethics Code, no significant moral damages were demonstrated to justify the compensation claim.

As a result, the appeal was acknowledged and dismissed, with the original judgment of dismissal of the compensation claim remaining in force. The court reaffirmed the understanding that the use of medical records in legal proceedings is permissible, provided that legal and ethical requirements are met and that their submission is necessary for the regular exercise of the right to defense.

This post was summarized from the original ruling with the use of AI, with human review.

TJCE/AC n. 0010073-67.2023.8.06.0071