Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Case Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Case Law. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Appeals Court Rejects Student's Lawsuit Over Alleged Harassment by Professor

By Libby Sander
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published July 10, 2012

Student workers who are sexually harassed on the job do not enjoy a higher standard of protection under federal employment law than do workers in other employment settings, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The case involves Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded is not liable for an undergraduate student's claims of sexual harassment by a prominent emeritus faculty member who was also a major donor.

In a 2-to-1 opinion, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected claims by the student, Samuel Milligan, under federal employment law that Southern Illinois created a hostile work and educational environment.

The entire story is here.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Maryland State Board of Physicians v. Eist

Patient Privacy vs. Disciplining Doctors

By Jonathan E. Montgomery
Originally published June 21, 2011

This January, Maryland's highest court ruled in Board of Physicians v. Eist, that health care practitioners must timely disclose patient medical records to Maryland's Board of Physicians pursuant to a Board subpoena, or face sanctions, even if the patient involved objects to the disclosure.

In this case, Dr. Eist, a psychiatrist, became the subject of a Board investigation after the estranged husband of one of his patients accused Dr. Eist of, among other things, overmedicating the patient. The Board demanded the patient's medical records, but Dr. Eist initially withheld the records when his patient refused to give consent to the disclosure. Dr. Eist believed that he should wait until the Board and his patient settled their privacy dispute.

The entire summary of the case can be found here.

The entire opinion can be read here.

One issue from this case stems from the psychiatrist’s choice of counsel.  Apparently, though a competent attorney, Dr. Eist’s lawyer did not seem to grasp fully how to proceed when dealing with Maryland's Board of Physicians.

One major benefit to being a PPA member is to subscribe to our Legal Consultation Plan.  For $150 per year, a member has access to three hours of time from an attorney who is also a psychologist and understands the workings of the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

California patients can sue if personal data are released during billing disputes



The Supreme Court of California has ruled that patients can sue doctors, debt collectors and others who disclose their medical information to credit agencies during billing disputes.

The ruling exposes California physicians to more lawsuits and hinders their ability to collect outstanding bills, said an attorney involved in the case.

In the past, the Fair Reporting Credit Act protected doctors from lawsuits over such disclosures. The law says if doctors or others receive notice that a debt is in dispute, they are required to furnish accurate and complete information about the debt to the requesting credit agency.

But in its June 16 opinion, the state's high court said a more stringent California law on patient privacy trumps the FRCA, preventing doctors from releasing any confidential information to creditors without patient consent.

"It really inhibits the ability of health care providers to document the basis for [debt] claims," said Charles Messer, an attorney who represented the bill collector, Stewart Mortenson. "It makes collecting medical debts much more difficult."

The decision stems from a billing dispute between Robert Brown and his dentist, Rolf Reinholds. In 2000, Brown was billed for a treatment he said he never received. The bill was referred to a debt collector, who contacted Reinholds for more information after Brown denied the debt, according to court records.

Reinholds sent Mortenson a copy of Brown's medical history. The record included medical histories of Brown's children, which were in the same file. As the billing dispute continued, Mortenson disclosed the medical information to three national consumer reporting agencies.
Brown sued Reinholds and Mortenson, alleging that he never consented to the record disclosure. Among other details, the information included Brown's Social Security number, address, date of birth and telephone number, court records show. Reinholds was dismissed from the suit after settling out of court, according to attorneys in the case.

Lower courts cited federal law

The trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of Mortenson. The lower courts said the confidential information provided was protected by the FRCA.

But the Supreme Court said the law is preempted by the stricter state measure, and that Brown's original claim could move forward. The court said the state privacy law also trumps the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which allows for certain administrative disclosures.

Brown, an attorney who represented himself, said the high court analyzed the facts carefully and came to the correct conclusion.

"It means people working with health care records in California have to be very careful they are not violating patients' confidentiality," he said. "Without patients' consent, medical information, including a patient's identifying [details], cannot be turned over to credit agencies."

The decision restricts the free flow of information needed for fair and accurate credit reporting, Messer said. Doctors are now subject to legal claims for complying with federal law and providing debt information, he added.

"It becomes a Catch-22 and exposes health care providers to liability," he said.
Messer is considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Additional Information

Robert A. Brown v. Stewart Mortenson, Supreme Court of California, June 16 (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S180862.PDF)