Greedy Trial Lawyer
"Interesting" Court Decision Hides Misconduct Of Dialysis Center
Category: Gaming The System
"A post at the Health Care Law Blog shows how disconnected our brains can get when dealing with the rights of an injured person not related to us. What really happened in this case is that the wrongdoer got to conceal information that probably would have resulted in legal liability for misconduct. But, the commentator views it as an interesting decison. One person's interesting is sometimes someone else's devastating.
Interesting [emphasis added] HIPAA preemption appellate decision out of Ohio finding that the Ohio physician-patient privilege statute preempts HIPAA since it provides greater protection to patient privacy.The decision in Grove v. Northeast Ohio Nephrology Associates (Ohio Ct. App., Nos. 22594, 22585, 12/26/2005), involved a malpractice claim for damages where the plaintiff was injured in a car accident by a patient who had just had dialysis treatment at the facility. The claim asserted that the dialysis provider was negligent in letting the patient drive following treatment and sought the non-party medical records of the patient. The dialysis provider objected to producing the records relying on Ohio's patient-physician privilege statute.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/122
Comments
I know little about the factual background of the case and can appreciate your personal view of devastation for one party. My use of the term "interesting" came from a purely legal perspective because the decision interprets HIPAA in light of state law privacy laws. We are in the midst of change due to the overlay of HIPAA and what impact federal law has on existing state law.
I would also point out that you can look at the decision from the perspective of the individual patient right to privacy. A basic premise for the need to protect the patient-physician privilege is so that patients, like you and me, can be candid with our health care providers without the fear that the information can be improperly used. This decision by the Ohio courts highlights that the the Ohio courts support the premise that patient privacy is important and will be protected above the HIPAA mandated protections.
Posted by: bob coffield at January 12, 2006 08:59 AM
While there should always be a sensitivity to privacy rights of a patient, it seems a bit of a stretch for the facility, which may have risked the lives of its patient and other motorists due to its misconduct, to wrap itself in a protective shield designed for other purposes.
Imagine a hospital that negligently unleashes a deadly infectious disease on an entire community because it fails to properly perform a lab test on one patient. Should the entire community and the victims be stymied by the claim of a privacy requirement of the patient?
Posted by: greedytriallawyer at January 12, 2006 01:51 PM
All I have read is the blurb, so there may be more to it, but my question is how is the dialysis center supposed to prevent someone from driving? A doctor can tell you that you shouldn't drive, but they can't stop you. Not in these circumstances, anyway.
Posted by: me at January 13, 2006 01:19 PM
"How is the dialysis center supposed to prevent someone from driving?" Asking this question is premature. The first question is whether or not there was some breach of the medical standard of care at the dialysis center.
Because the center is permitted to conceal the facts of the care, presumably nobody will ever know the answer. However, it is possible (perhaps probable) that the center did not comply with the medical standard of care.
I arrive at this last observation because the injured victim of the automobile accident has alleged that some breach occurred. The dialysis patient may have said that the center refused a request for care after the dialysis; the physical condition of the patient may have been below the acceptable limits for "discharge". These are just two examples of possible breaches of the standard of care.
None of this requires that anyone tackle the patient on the way out the door.
Posted by: greedytriallawyer at January 14, 2006 09:43 AM