Decision
Ms X and The Medical Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-163103-C7P6S0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-163103-C7P6S0
Published on
Whether the Medical Council was justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for medical records held by a named practitioner on the basis that it does not hold the records sought
16 January 2026
In a request dated 23 September 2025, the applicant sought access to her medical records held by a named practitioner from the Medical Council. The request was made by her in the context of an ongoing complaint which she had made to the Medical Council. In a decision dated 24 September 2025, the Council refused access to the records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that it holds no relevant records.
The applicant sought an internal review of the Council’s decision, and on 1 October 2025, the Council issued its internal review decision in which it affirmed its refusal of the request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. It explained that an examination of her complaint had not, at that stage, commenced, and that no medical records had been requested from her doctor. On 1 October 2025, the Applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Medical Council’s decision.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the submissions made by both the applicant and the Medical Council. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The scope of this review is concerned solely with whether the Medical Council was justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for a copy of her medical records held by a named medical practitioner.
Before I engage in a substantive analysis of the matters pertinent to this review, I wish to address a number of matters which have been raised by the applicant. In her correspondence with this Office, she indicated she previously received records from the relevant medical practitioner and that records were missing. She said she made requests from other medical practices that were refused. She referenced requests made under data protection legislation and also referenced what appears to be a reference number for a complaint made to the Office of the Ombudsman. She also referenced records held by the legal Aid Board. She also alleged that certain records from her medical record were deleted or altered.
During the review, and following receipt of the Medical Council’s submissions, this Office’s Investigator informed the applicant of the details of the submissions made and he invited submissions from the Applicant and suggested that she consider whether the Medical Council was the most appropriate body through which to obtain her medical records and whether it would be more appropriate for her to make an FOI request to either her GP or the HSE in order to obtain her medical records. In response to the Investigator’s invitation for a response to points raised by the Medical Council, the applicant referred to what appears – based on the record number citied by the Applicant - to be a complaint which she has made to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Applicant further purported to initiate separate reviews against her GP’s practice and the HSE in respect of previous FOI requests which she claims to have made.
It is important to note that that as set out above, this review is concerned solely with the question of whether the Medical Council was justified in refusing access to the records sought pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Matters falling outside the scope of this review, which include allegations of deletion or alteration of medical records, any complaints made by her to the Office of the Ombudsman – a separate and distinct Office to that of the Office of the Information Commissioner - and any issues arising from previous FOI requests made by the Applicant to her GP practice, the HSE, or indeed any other FOI body, are matters which this Office cannot consider as part of this review. Furthermore, the applicant cannot simply purport to initiate a fresh review request in the context of an ongoing review. She may, of course, apply separately to this Office to seek a review of FOI requests she may have made in the event she is dissatisfied with a response or lack thereof which she has received from another FOI body.
Secondly, in her submissions to this office, the applicant has referenced“extensive delays and non compliance with FOI deadlines” and states her request was not processed within the statutory timeframes required by the FOI Act causing her delay, hardship, and negative impact on her healthcare. The Applicant made her FOI request to the Medical Council on 23 September 2025, and the FOI Body’s decision issued the following day. The applicant sought an internal review of that decision on the same date, and the Internal review decision issued a week later, on 1 October 2025. While the applicant may feel that her FOI request was not dealt with promptly, I must disagree with her conclusion that there was any non-compliance with the time limitations set out in the FOI Act on the part of the Medical Council in dealing with the applicant’s request.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. My role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and I must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submission, the Medical Council said it does not hold the records sought. It said it has no role or remit in the maintenance of medical records unless they have been provided to it by a complainant or a doctor as part of a complaint. In coming to its conclusion that it does not hold the records sought by the applicant, the Medical Council said it consulted its internal case management system and conducted a search for all records which related to the complaint raised by the applicant. It said multiple personal identifiers were provided by the applicant which were forwarded to the Officer carrying out the search in order to assist them, along with the name of her doctor and his medical practice address.
On foot of its searches, the Medical Council noted that the applicant’s complaint was only at potential stage, and it was confirmed that no investigations had been carried out. It said it has not requested any of the applicant’s medical records, and the only records on file in relation to the applicant were emails sent by the applicant herself. It said it believes that the applicant may be mistaken as to the precise nature of its role and indeed suggested – based on correspondence between the applicant and the Medical Council – that she believes the practice of the named practitioner to be an extension of it. It said its role is that of a statutory body and that the applicant is mistaken in her belief that it is an extension of the named practitioner’s practice.
While it is apparent that the Medical Council may request medical records in the course of its investigation of a complaint, I accept that it has not done so in this instance on the basis that it has not progressed the applicant’s complaint to a stage where it would have requested and received relevant records. While the applicant alluded in her submissions to a perceived failure on the part of the Medical Council to obtain medical records from the relevant medical practitioner, she has submitted no evidence to suggest that the Medical Council actually holds the records sought.
It is important to note that the right of access afforded under the FOI Act is confined to records actually held by an FOI body. There is no obligation on an FOI body to seek to obtain records that it does not hold for the purpose of responding to an FOI request. The FOI Act provides that a reference to records held by an FOI body includes a reference to records under the control of that body. While the Medical Council may be entitled to seek access to records for the purpose of conducting an investigation, this does not mean that such records would be deemed to be under its control. I am satisfied that they would not.
Having reviewed the submissions made by both parties, I am satisfied, having regard to the nature of the Medical Council’s role and the basis upon which it would request records of the type which the applicant seeks, that it took all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that it does not hold the records.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Medical Council’s decision to refuse access to the records sought under section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator