appendix d: summaries of selected cases The Ombudsman stated that according to a general administrative doctrine an administrative body may also have a duty, even outside decision cases, to make notes regarding important case processing steps. The Ombudsman has previously expressed this view in connection with ‘conventional’ administrative cases which have certain infringing and important effects for the citizen and where a requirement to make notes of important case processing steps is natural and desirable. The Ombudsman therefore recommended that the regional state administration resume processing the complaint that the local authority had failed to make notes regarding the inspection. (Case No. 2008-3903-114). 2. Access for relatives to information about deceased patients While processing a case, the Ombudsman became aware that there could be some doubt regarding the extent of relatives’ right to information about deceased patients under the provisions of the Health Act. Consequently, the Ombudsman opened an own-initiative case vis-à-vis the National Board of Patient Complaints (the Board) and the Ministry of Health and Prevention (the Ministry) regarding the Board’s application of the provisions. After reviewing the replies from the Board and the Ministry, the Ombudsman concurred with the authorities that the Health Act could not be presumed to give the next of kin an actual right to access to the medical records of deceased patients. However, on the basis of the Act’s clear explanatory notes the Ombudsman was in no doubt that the Act was to be interpreted as meaning that, as a general rule, the next of kin of a deceased person has a valid right to information about the course of disease, the cause of death and the manner of death of the deceased. This right on the part of the relatives must necessarily impose a duty on the relevant health care providers to hand over the information. Furthermore, the Ombudsman pointed out that the National Board of Patient Complaints must inform the health care provider in question if the Board finds that a health care provider has contravened his or her duty to hand over information. (Case No. 2006-3974-401) 81