Posted on 07/14/2004 5:10:23 AM PDT by Born Conservative
LEBANON - Keith Emerich regrets telling his doctors the truth.
The Lebanon man told doctors who were treating him for an irregular heartbeat that he drinks six to 10 beers a day. If not for his admission in February, Emerich, 44, said he would still have his driver's license.
The state Department of Transportation recalled Emerich's license as of April 1 because he was reported by a physician as having a medical condition that impairs his driving ability. Emerich's medical condition, according to PennDOT, is substance abuse.
"The six to 10 beers was just an estimate. I'm a typical 'Joe Six Pack.' I come home, and I have a few beers after work," Emerich said. "I didn't know they could take away my license for that."
Now he's fighting PennDOT's decision, claiming he doesn't drink and drive. What he does at home after work is his business, Emerich said.
A hearing is scheduled before Lebanon County Court Judge Samuel Kline on July 29.
Emerich was wrong to think that what he told his doctor was confidential, said Tena Firery, research director for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a California-based consumer education, research and advocacy program. State and federal privacy laws are riddled with exceptions, Firery said.
"Medical information is about the most sensitive information out there," she said. "Just because you tell your doctor something doesn't mean it doesn't leave the exam room. The exceptions are meant to protect people, but they do have disadvantages."
Some people are less likely to seek treatment or tell their doctors everything they need to know if doctors will disclose that information to others, Firery said.
Horace Ehrgood, a Lebanon attorney representing Emerich, declined to comment because of the upcoming hearing. But Harrisburg attorney John B. Mancke, a traffic law expert, said PennDOT overstepped its bounds when taking Emerich's license.
It's the first time Mancke and several other attorneys could remember PennDOT recalling a license in anything but a drunken driving case.
Mancke said Emerich's case raises serious questions about a person's right to privacy, mainly because PennDOT doesn't have to reveal who provided the information.
The law requires physicians to report anyone older than 15 who has a medical condition that could impair his or her ability to drive safely. If the physician doesn't provide the information within 10 days of the examination, the law states, the doctor risks civil and possible criminal charges.
Anthony Haubert, a PennDOT spokesman, said medical conditions range from seizures to poor eyesight to substance abuse.
A person doesn't have to use the drug or substance while driving to lose his or her license, said Maryann Haft, another PennDOT representative.
"It's based on the doctor's recommendation at the time of the examination," Haft said. "This has been around for a long time. It's nothing new but, unless you've had it happen to you, you probably wouldn't know it happens."
Haubert said PennDOT recalls 5,000 to 6,000 licenses a year, but the agency doesn't track the reasons for the recalls. Many are temporary suspensions but others, such as Emerich's, can't be restored until he proves that he has sought treatment.
Emerich was diagnosed as having atrial fibrillation, a fast, irregular heartbeat that affects 2 million Americans. Heart disease, lung disease, smoking and excessive alcohol and caffeine intake are among the causes of the condition.
Emerich said he believes the doctor who diagnosed him with atrial fibrillation reported him to PennDOT, but he said he doesn't know for sure.
Attorney Joseph Ricci of Harrisburg said PennDOT is within its legal rights to recall the driver's license of a person they believe could harm the public.
There have been cases that test a doctor's obligation to report his or her patients to PennDOT. In Witthoeft vs. Kiskaddon, a doctor was sued for not informing his patient that her poor eyesight prevented her from driving safely, Ricci said. Dr. James C. Kiskaddon's patient hit and killed a bicyclist with her car.
The state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the doctor was not liable for the death.
But, Ricci said, the idea of PennDOT's requirement is to prevent these accidents from happening.
"The safety of the public good takes precedence over a person's privacy. Right to privacy is not absolute," Ricci said. "Driving in Pennsylvania is a privilege, not a right. You have to meet criteria set by [PennDOT] in order to drive, and one of those criteria is not having a condition that could impair your ability to drive safely."
According to his medical records, Emerich's irregular heartbeat could be "possibly related to his heavy alcohol use. ... He needs to decrease his alcohol consumption."
Emerich insists he doesn't drink and drive anymore. He had one DUI conviction 23 years ago, when he was 21. Since then, he's had a clean work and driving record.
Scott Popson, Emerich's boss at Eagle Graphics Inc. in Annville, said Emerich is a good employee who has had a clean work record for the past 15 years. He has never appeared for work intoxicated or with alcohol on his breath, Popson said.
"He's never caused us any problems," Popson said.
Having his license taken away has made Emerich re-evaluate his drinking. He has cut down on the weekdays, but says he still indulges with a six pack on the weekends.
"If it's gonna mess up my heart, then, yes, I think I have a problem. But I'm working on it," Emerich said. "They had no right to take away my license. I don't drink and drive."
Different title; I guess that's why I couldn't find it when I searched for it before posting.
Different titles are impossible to catch. That why I didn't say ALREADY POSTED. I hate it when people say that.
Problem "solved", and the Nanny State need not be inconvenienced.
and yet they can't bend over enough for illegals.
No problem; I'm not accusing you of being a DPN (duplicate posting Nazi). I just responded to let everyone know that I checked before I posted.
I hate the DPN's
I don't understand how a person who has never gotten a ticket can have his driver license taken away. Is there no due process in this state? Someone needs to have the backside kicked over this!
Ping
Tell that to the AIDS lobby.
Ping
and yet they can't bend over enough for illegals.
.
.
That's because the illegals NEVER drink and drive, and Always have insurance and . . . oh yeah it's PC.
.
.
.
.
sarcasm/ but the good kind
Tell that to the AIDS lobby."
Your oh so correct with that statement.
In addition, the same attorney, Mr. Ricci states, "Driving... is a privilege, not a right."
How did this happen?
Before the invention of the automobile, did people who rode a horse, operated a two-wheel buggy, or covered wagon, not have the "right" to travel by those means to any destination of their choice?
The Pennsylvania Constitution states,
Inherent Rights of Mankind Section 1. All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.
Isn't an "inherent and indefeasible (that cannot be annulled or made void) right(s)" of "enjoying...liberty" include the right, not the privilege, to travel uninhibited by government in acquired private property (an auto) on the roads that your tax money has paid for?
Of course it does.
The "right" to travel as free people is so basic to freedom and liberty that any government intervention to the contrary is anti-liberty and surely violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.
I would be interested on your take on this story.
Section 11.
All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and eight and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.
The only gripe I would have in this instance is that he should be allowed to challenge the charge of one man's opinion before being summarily sentenced.
It's 'Nanny State' to keep unsafe drivers off the road? Then so be it - I guess I'm in favor of a nanny state.
This guy has a condition that can make him pass out. This condition is exacerbated by his drinking.
He should not be driving.
There is a difference between riding a horse through a sparsely populated town and driving a dangerous vehicle at 65 miles an hour on a crowded highway.
Not only is alcohol a legal substance to consume, but in Pennsylvania the only place you can buy wine and liquor by the bottle (with a few exceptions) is ... STATE STORES. So the product is legal enough for the state to sell it - but if someone consumes the legal product, the state can, without any evidence of wrongdoing, take away the person's license.
And as noted on the other thread, this could have a VERY chilling effect on people's willingness to mention their alcohol consumption to their doctors. I'm this guy's age, and I'll drink a six pack - and at my body weight, I'm not even legally intoxicated if I were drink a six-pack in an hour. I will now think twice about mentioning to a doctor that I consume beer if I go to him for any health problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.