Medical records and privacy in a CBR assessment

Which procedure is above the information request?

First check why medical information is requested. The CBR policy rule for examining medical specialists, which has been in effect since January 1, 2026, distinguishes the health declaration procedure from an imposed examination after a notification. With the first one you request an assessment yourself; the second may follow a report from, for example, the police. That difference deserves attention before an explanation of the consequences of non-cooperation from one situation to another is applied. Save the decision or referral that started your research.

Then read the specific question: which subject, which doctor and which documents are mentioned? A general description such as health research says little about a specific request for a specific treatment report. Make a note of what information you have already provided and what new information is requested. This makes it visible whether something is actually missing or whether an earlier document simply did not end up in the right place. Have an unclear assignment clarified before you voluntarily send an extensive file to various recipients.

Processing, inspecting and deciding are different tasks

An attending physician knows you from providing care. An independent examining specialist assesses a specific suitability question, after which CBR makes a decision. The KNMG explains that a treating physician should not give an opinion on the fitness to drive of his own patient. Specific factual information can be provided with explicit permission. So do not just ask for a favorable explanation, but clarify which fact needs to be confirmed and who is authorized to draw the medical or administrative conclusion.

This division of labor also prevents a practical conflict from being presented as a medical judgment. For example, a practitioner can confirm a date of treatment without declaring that any form of driving is responsible. In turn, an inspection recommendation is not the same as the final decision. Therefore, write down the sender, purpose and status for each piece. This makes a conversation with legal assistance more concrete than a folder in which medical notes, advice and decisions are placed next to each other without distinction.

Ask which data answers the research question

A targeted data question shows why a certain piece of data is needed. Consider the period to which a question relates or the specific part of a previous study. Ask the doctor how a broadly formulated request should be understood and whether a targeted factual answer is possible. This is not an invitation to hide relevant information. It is a way to prevent the use of a complete treatment history without explanation when the question concerns a separate topic.

Also distinguish between missing data and an existing deviating interpretation. A doctor may have read an old document and think differently; one more copy won't change that disagreement. Ask where the report explains what data was used and how the conclusion fits into it. If a date or person involved is incorrect, please point to the original source. A precisely defined difference provides a better starting point than the general statement that CBR has misunderstood everything.

Consent for one provision is not a general authorisation

The Dutch Data Protection Authority explains that health data requires an appropriate basis and additional protection. Consent does not play the same role in every processing; a legal task may also be relevant, while professional secrecy requires a personal assessment. Therefore, ask what exactly permission is being asked for: requesting information from a practitioner, sending a report or having someone else read it. A signature on one form does not automatically indicate which other actions are permitted.

Read the description of data, recipient and purpose and save the version you have seen. Ask for an explanation if a form seems broader than the question discussed. Do not independently conclude from this that all obligations to cooperate expire. Submit any problem with consent or the scope of a request to your doctor and legal aid in a timely manner. This keeps the discussion controllable and prevents an undiscussed refusal from appearing later only if the necessary information is missing in the file.

Reading the report is different from rewriting the conclusion

The current policy describes inspection before sending, correction of factual inaccuracies and the right to block. When accessing the data with a view to correction or blocking, it states a response period of two weeks and information about the possible consequences. Check which notice and procedure apply in your case and report a specific obstacle immediately. A request for an explanation is not automatically a confirmed postponement. Therefore, also keep the covering letter and the date on which the report became available.

Use insight to distinguish exactly what you want to discuss. Is there an incorrect medication name, is an event incorrectly dated or do you disagree with the meaning that the specialist gives to a correctly stated fact? These are different objections. When requesting a correction, ask for a recognizable decision on the specific point and keep both versions. The right to have a factual error assessed does not automatically give the right to replace the independent medical conclusion according to one's own preference.

Stopping a report may have a different outcome than an objection

Blocking is not a neutral way to have an unfavorable assessment redone. For the health declaration route, the policy rule mentions a year without a declaration of fitness after use of the blocking right. In the event of an imposed investigation, there is also a legal obligation to cooperate. Before making your choice, explain which route applies and what stopping shipment means. Do not rely on the idea that a right should be able to be used without adverse consequences or that the report will then simply disappear from the procedure.

On June 1, 2026, the Overijssel District Court ruled in ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:2979 on an imposed investigation, the report of which had been blocked. The preliminary relief judge also heard the appeal and upheld the declaration of invalidity due to the lack of full cooperation. The substantive objections to the investigation process therefore did not become the assessment that the person concerned was looking for. This is a concrete court decision, not an independent general criminal rule. The practical lesson is the difference between a substantive objection and a choice that prevents the report from being used. (The Overijssel District Court ruled on June 1, 2026 in ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:2979)

Fictional example: an incorrect year and unfavorable advice

In a fictional example, Daan reads the wrong year in an inspection report during a previous treatment. He also believes that the advice does not sufficiently reflect his current situation. Out of anger he wants to stop the shipment completely. In doing so, he merges two questions: must a fact be corrected and how can the medical or administrative assessment be challenged? The discovery of an error does not automatically answer the question of what consequences blocking has in his imposed investigation.

A more careful preparation saves the report, the original treatment data and the accompanying explanation of rights and terms. Daan specifically asks for an assessment of the year and discusses separately how the substantive disagreement is presented. The doctor decides based on his own professional responsibility; the lawyer assesses the procedural route. The example does not predict an eligibility outcome. It shows that a concrete point for improvement can be lost if a person involved immediately chooses a means with different consequences than the desired correction.

A data stream that a doctor and lawyer can understand together

Create one line per information request or provision. Include not only the name of an organization, but also the role of the recipient and the purpose. A document that has been created for processing can later have a different function in an inspection. The map makes that transition visible. It does not ask for medical conclusions from the person concerned; refer to the original report and note which passage is the subject of a question. Keep the overview and sensitive attachments separated where necessary.

• Start: health declaration or imposed examination, with decision and referral.
• Question: specific subject, relevant period and requested source documents.
• Sender: practitioner, examining specialist, data subject or other data holder.
• Recipient: name, role, purpose and agreed safe shipping route.
• Consent: form, scope discussed and date of confirmation.
• Report: receipt, inspection moment, concrete factual error and desired assessment.
• Procedure: response period, proposed action, known consequences and legal contact.

A privacy question does not replace the driving license decision

If you believe that medical information has been shared incorrectly, record which data, which recipient and at what time. Ask the responsible organization for a specific explanation. A general question about privacy can be answered differently with general information, while your problem concerns one specific provision. Do not share the entire medical file again with every complaints body. Ask what documents are needed to understand the complaint and how they can be delivered safely.

In addition, keep track of the administrative proceedings. A complaint about data processing, a request to a doctor and an objection against a CBR decision have different purposes. Do not assume that the handling of a privacy question will stop the period for objection or that a request for correction will restore driving privileges. The CBR objection guide helps you read the decision and remedies information separately. Discuss urgency immediately if an existing decision already has consequences for work or transport. (objection to the CBR)

Accurate information is more than as much as possible or as little as possible

A full box of treatment documents is not automatically a better substantiation than a specific statement. Conversely, omitting unfavorable information does not make a report reliable. The question is what information is needed for the assessment, how it was obtained and what conclusions it can support. Your own summary can help with preparation, but it must remain recognizable as your overview and not as a professional medical opinion. Save the source documents so that differences remain verifiable.

Our conclusion is therefore procedural and practical: understand the question before you share, read the report before you respond and have the consequences of a legal act assessed before you use it. The Road Traffic Act forms an important part of the framework; your concrete decision and referral determine which parts are relevant. With a clear data map, legal aid can focus on the real issue, instead of figuring out after the fact whether a conversation about privacy has inadvertently turned into a decision about lack of cooperation.