Medical openness needs clear boundaries
Someone substantiating physical or psychological symptoms will often need to discuss medical information. That does not give a personal injury file unlimited access to every available health detail. We believe a request should begin with a concrete explanation: why is this needed and who will assess it?
This contribution presents an editorial position. The proposed improvements do not describe new statutory rights.
Request medical information for a defined purpose, explain its route and make authorisations understandable before anyone signs.
In this guide
A file also contains someone’s personal history
A medical file may reveal much more than what changed after an accident. It can contain previous symptoms, family circumstances and conversations that are deeply personal. Requesting this information therefore involves more than an administrative formality. It is reasonable for someone to ask why an item is needed and who will read it afterwards.
A stack of documents does not itself identify which information matters for the assessment. An extensive file may even make a focused question harder to follow. We therefore prefer requests to begin with the issue requiring assessment. Privacy then becomes a visible element of the process, expressed through specific choices rather than only a general promise.
Begin with the question requiring an answer
A personal injury case may involve disputes about the injury, its connection to an event and the consequences for work or everyday life. These are different questions. The relevant period or treating professional may differ accordingly. The medical assessment described by De Letselschade Raad therefore deserves an explanation connected to the actual question.
We would like every request to include a short explanation: this is the disputed issue, this is the information requested and this is why it may help. The person involved should not have to guess whether a request is routine or has a specific basis. Their representative can also discuss missing information and appropriate limits more precisely.
Who assesses what?
A client may confuse the roles of treating professional, medical adviser, insurer and legal representative. Each has a different function. A treating professional focuses on care; a medical adviser may discuss information in the context of assessing losses. The actual information route and agreements need explaining for the particular file, without presenting a general diagram as a guarantee.
A clear explanation therefore identifies the relevant roles and the purpose of disclosure. Which information reaches a medical adviser? What is subsequently shared about conclusions or relevant consequences? Who can answer questions about an authorisation? These questions do not inherently express distrust. They help someone understand where consent and assessment fit within the process.
A claim must still be capable of assessment
The important counterargument is that medical assessment cannot be careful when relevant information is missing. Earlier symptoms may sometimes matter when considering which consequences can be attributed to an accident. Supporting restraint must therefore not become advice to refuse every question about medical history or disclose only favourable records.
We take that concern seriously. It is precisely why we want discussions about relevance to be visible. If older records are considered necessary, explain the question and period concerned. If someone objects, discuss possible alternatives or a narrower scope. The objective remains a responsible assessment, with room to question the extent of the information requested.
A signature does not prove understanding
An authorisation can be carefully drafted in legal terms while remaining difficult for the signatory to understand. Technical language, several recipients and broad descriptions of records can make this worse. We believe the formal wording should be accompanied by an ordinary explanation of its purpose, scope and practical consequences.
A client should be able to ask which information will be requested and how long the arrangement remains relevant. This does not promise a general power to halt every processing activity without consequences; the situation and applicable rules matter. A provider should discuss the consequences of choices before dismissing a difficult question as delay.
Care continues after records are obtained
A document already received can easily become the next email attachment. Necessity therefore deserves reconsideration when records are forwarded too. A general case update does not automatically require the same medical details as a focused medical assessment. The information needed for each conversation warrants attention each time.
This also applies to tools on our website. A timeline helps organise events without requiring an entire medical file. Record what is necessary to prepare the discussion and decide who receives the overview. A downloaded document can be shared further by its recipient. Checking it first remains useful even when the tool itself transmits nothing.
Make information requests traceable
We propose a short information overview accompanying each substantial medical request: the question, the records needed, the recipient and how further questions can be raised. It does not replace statutory information duties or professional assessment. It gives the person a recognisable place to reread agreements and identify remaining uncertainty.
Medical openness and clear boundaries can reinforce each other. A concrete, well-explained request may inspire more trust than broad wording without context. It also helps discussions happen early, while scope can still be considered. A careful file needs sufficient relevant evidence as well as attention to the person the information concerns.
Sources for this article
This information concerns Dutch law. Consult the source for current guidance and seek advice about your own situation if you are unsure.
De Letselschade Raad: medical assessmentDe Letselschade Raad: the settlement processGeneral information. This does not replace individual legal advice.
Back to opinionLegal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Letselschade in Nederland
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology