\n Her father, Christopher Rice, remains in custody after appearing at Forfar Sheriff Court charged with murder.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n \n The employment tribunal was brought by Dr Glen Gardner, a clinical scientist at Ninewells, who believed he had been unfairly dismissed by the board after he was sacked for accessing the records over two periods between August 2023 and May 2024.\n<\/p>\n \n \n Dr Gardner, who had 15 years’ service with the board, admitted looking at the records but said he had legitimate reasons, including audits he was carrying out.\n<\/p>\n \n The scientist was transferred from front-line clinical duties and the nuclear medicine department in August 2023 after concerns were raised about “advice he had given to a patient concerning her breastfeeding whilst undergoing treatment”.\n<\/p>\n \n The tribunal reports that “it was alleged that the advice in question was erroneous and concerns were expressed by management”.\n<\/p>\n \n Because this was a temporary measure while the advice he had given was being investigated, his supervisor, Mark Worrall, did not restrict his access to patient records.\n<\/p>\n \n Dr Gardner was then off sick for four months. When he returned he said the programming tasks he had been assigned had been “menial and are not related to nuclear medicine” and asked about returning to some of the audit work that he had previously been responsible for.\n<\/p>\n \n Mr Worrall undertook to “discuss whether this work was being undertaken by other colleagues” but did not instruct or allow the scientist to go ahead with this work.\n<\/p>\n \n It was in May 2024 that a colleague of Dr Gardner’s from the nuclear medicine department was using the patient records system known as CRIS when she realised that someone else was in the record she was accessing.\n<\/p>\n \n When she raised this with Mr Worrall he ordered a review of Dr Gardner’s access to the CRIS system and his access of clinical patient records.\n<\/p>\n \n That review revealed that while he was supposedly on alternative duties, the scientist had accessed 386 patient records, some on multiple occasions.\n<\/p>\n \n The matter was escalated, with the health board reporting the breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office.\n<\/p>\n \n The ICO suggested that the police be informed and that the affected patients be informed.\n<\/p>\n \n At a meeting with management, Dr Gardner admitted accessing the records in question, but claimed his role had not been changed.\n<\/p>\n \n He said he had not been told in writing not to use CRIS, and that all that had changed was his location.\n<\/p>\n \n He insisted he had legitimate explanations, saying he had been carrying out an audit of PET scans, which are commonly used to detect cancer, and a separate audit of breastfeeding patients.\n<\/p>\n \n Dr Gardner explained he had not “recorded the audit as yet” and would “do this on my return to the department when my clinical systems had been reinstated”.\n<\/p>\n \n However, during the subsequent disciplinary hearing, it emerged that Dr Gardner had raised a grievance which read: “I have been suspended from my duties in Nuclear Medicine”.\n<\/p>\n \n It went on to complain about the “removal of my duties and responsibilities in Nuclear Medicine, I was relocated to another area of the hospital and given menial \u2014 for me \u2014 imaging processing task”.\n<\/p>\n \n He was dismissed for gross misconduct in June last year.\n<\/p>\n \n Employment Judge Paul Rae ruled at a hearing in Dundee<\/a> in August that the board had acted reasonably and that dismissal was within the range of responses open to it.\n<\/p>\n \n The judge found Dr Gardner “honest and credible” but preferred the board’s evidence where the accounts differed.\n<\/p>\n \n Dr Gardner, who represented himself at the tribunal, tried to add a whistleblowing claim two weeks before the hearing. He said he had made protected disclosures about compliance with the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2017 and had suffered detriment and dismissal as a result.\n<\/p>\n \n The judge refused the application on the first day, saying the claim was months out of time and would have forced the hearing to be postponed.\n<\/p>\n \n North East Tory MSP Liam Kerr told The Herald: “This represents a staggering level of data breaches within NHS Tayside that patients appear to have been kept completely in the dark about.\n<\/p>\n \n “Serious questions must be answered by bosses at the health board as to why hundreds of breaches were not immediately reported and made public.\n<\/p>\n \n “It is appalling that someone could have managed to access confidential records on so many occasions and why restrictions were not imposed on this individual.\n<\/p>\n \n “This comes after it being notable there were no obvious repercussions when breaches occurred in relation to the Minnie Merriman case, and there will be concerns that these incidents are too common within NHS Tayside.\n<\/p>\n \n “The SNP<\/a>‘s health secretary must intervene in this case, find out why NHS Tayside kept this covered up and what measures have been taken since to protect information patients have entrusted with the health board.”\n<\/p>\n \n A spokesperson for NHS Tayside said: “Following a comprehensive investigation under NHS Scotland<\/a> workforce policy, it was identified that personal information was viewed inappropriately by a single member of staff.\n<\/p>\n \n “This staff member was dismissed in June 2025. In its judgment, an employment tribunal backed this course of disciplinary action, stating the claimant’s actions were sufficient reason for dismissal.\n<\/p>\n \n “NHS Tayside reported the incident to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who found that there was no evidence that the personal data left NHS Tayside’s systems.\n<\/p>\n \n “Patients who have been affected are being contacted directly to explain what happened to their information in detail and to offer a sincere apology.”\n<\/p>\n \n An ICO spokesperson said: \u201cWhen people need medical care, they share some of their most sensitive personal information and trust that it will be protected.\n<\/p>\n \n “Our message to those working in healthcare is clear: if you access patient data unlawfully, you risk your livelihood, your professional accreditation and possible criminal sanctions.”\n<\/p>\n \n They added: \u201cWe can confirm we received a breach report from NHS Tayside regarding this incident, and the Board subsequently updated us on the conclusion of its internal investigation and disciplinary process.\n<\/p>\n \n “Having considered the circumstances of the case, including the action taken by NHS Tayside, the employee\u2019s dismissal and the fact that there was no evidence of harm to patients, we decided it was not in the public interest to pursue criminal prosecution or further regulatory action in this case.”\n<\/p>\n \n The Ferret reported in July<\/a> that NHS boards across Scotland had recorded more than 5,000 data breaches since January 2023, with at least 182 staff facing disciplinary sanctions and Police Scotland informed six times. NHS Tayside was one of the boards that did not provide figures, saying the request was very broad and that much of the information was not held centrally.\n<\/p>\n \n As well as the Minnie Merriman case, the Courier reported in January 2024 that a Ninewells worker had inappropriately accessed a Perthshire woman’s records twice.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n \n The paper said the ICO upheld her complaint and made recommendations including mandatory training and changes to procedure.\n<\/p>\n \n Ninewells hospital in Dundee (Image: PA)\n<\/p>\n
Ninewells hospital in Dundee (Image: PA)\n<\/p>\n