OT: FOFC lawyer contingent

SackAttack · 12-05-2003, 01:59 AM

Personal and political opinions - on *both* sides of the aisle - about Rush Limbaugh aside, I'm curious about the ramifications of this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001269.asp?vts=120420032349

I was always under the impression that people's medical records were legally protected as part of doctor/patient privilege. Does this suddenly not apply, or is it because of the number of doctors involved? Like, Rush and one doctor, that's a personal relationship, but Rush and four, it's considered not to be, or something?

I'm a little confused, and if any of the lawyer-type folks on the board can clear this one up for me, I'd appreciate it.

Again, let's try to stay away from political commentary here, as I'm only interested in the legal ramifications here. Thanks.

--Josh

mckerney · 12-05-2003, 03:29 AM

Florida law on release of medical records:

http://www.floridamalpractice.com/me...dshospital.htm

B. Confidentiality. Section 395.3025(4) says these "patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: (a) licensed facility personnel and attending physicians for use in connection with treatment; (b) licensed facility personnel for administrative purposes or risk management and quality assurance functions; (c) the Agency for Health Care Administration for purposes of health care cost containment; (d) in any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the parties seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative; (e) the Agency or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upon subpoena; (f) the Department of Professional Regulation for purposes of establishing and maintaining trauma registry; (g) the Department of HRS for investigations of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children or disabled adults or elderly persons; (h) the State long term care ombudsman counsel for a patient who has been admitted from a nursing home or long term care facility when the counsel are conducting an investigation involving the patient pursuant to Chapter 400; (i) a local trauma agency or regional trauma agency performing quality assurance activities; (j) organ procurement organizations.

damnMikeBrown · 12-05-2003, 03:38 AM

Don't worry. Gov. Bush will get that law changed post haste.

SackAttack · 12-05-2003, 11:10 AM

dMB, I'm fairly certain that ex post facto would apply there. If the search warrants have, in fact, already been issued and executed, changing the law wouldn't, I don't think, affect the permissibility of the evidence obtained via those warrants.

Thanks for the link, mckerney. I think that pretty well clears up my question.

QuikSand · 12-05-2003, 11:44 AM

mckerney saves the day, yet again.

12-05-2003, 03:29 AM	#2
mckerney Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	Florida law on release of medical records: http://www.floridamalpractice.com/me...dshospital.htm B. Confidentiality. Section 395.3025(4) says these "patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made without such consent to: (a) licensed facility personnel and attending physicians for use in connection with treatment; (b) licensed facility personnel for administrative purposes or risk management and quality assurance functions; (c) the Agency for Health Care Administration for purposes of health care cost containment; (d) in any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the parties seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative; (e) the Agency or the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upon subpoena; (f) the Department of Professional Regulation for purposes of establishing and maintaining trauma registry; (g) the Department of HRS for investigations of abuse, neglect or exploitation of children or disabled adults or elderly persons; (h) the State long term care ombudsman counsel for a patient who has been admitted from a nursing home or long term care facility when the counsel are conducting an investigation involving the patient pursuant to Chapter 400; (i) a local trauma agency or regional trauma agency performing quality assurance activities; (j) organ procurement organizations.

12-05-2003, 03:38 AM	#3
damnMikeBrown College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Cincinnati, OH	Don't worry. Gov. Bush will get that law changed post haste.

12-05-2003, 11:10 AM	#4
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	dMB, I'm fairly certain that ex post facto would apply there. If the search warrants have, in fact, already been issued and executed, changing the law wouldn't, I don't think, affect the permissibility of the evidence obtained via those warrants. Thanks for the link, mckerney. I think that pretty well clears up my question.

12-05-2003, 11:44 AM	#5
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	mckerney saves the day, yet again.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)