Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Limbaugh: Keep my records private
CNN ^ | December 16, 2003 | Susan Candiotti and Rich Phillips

Posted on 12/16/2003 11:51:59 AM PST by mcg1969

Embattled radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is asking a Palm Beach County, Florida, court to keep his medical records sealed from prosecutors investigating whether he illegally purchased prescription painkillers.

The records were seized from two of his doctors' offices last month. The search warrants itemizing what was seized was filed in court December 4.

Two more search warrants were obtained but not executed, two law enforcement sources said.

Limbaugh's move came as prosecutors were getting ready to file a motion of their own to examine the records, as required by Florida law, prosecutors said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: limbaugh; lovablefuzzball; medicalrecords; rush; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: mcg1969
I seem to remember Rush railing against Clinton for not releasing his records. But, as all the WOD folk are fond to say "well, if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't worry"

I don't care if they get released or not, but Rush is learning a bit about the real world outside his limosene...

61 posted on 12/16/2003 4:01:03 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (En la boca cerrada, no entran moscas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celantro
the fact that Rush is a law-breaker and a drug addict deminishes him tremendously

Guilty already, huh? I didn't think he had been charged with anything.
62 posted on 12/16/2003 4:05:39 PM PST by gitmo (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I seem to remember Rush railing against Clinton for not releasing his records.

Can you document that?
63 posted on 12/16/2003 4:13:00 PM PST by gitmo (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
No, coperating means you are doing everything possible to give law enforecement the ability to clear your name. Usually exercising one's rights means something less than full co-operation.

Let's even go one step further. Say I'm working for you. You've found some descrepancies and ask me to bring to you all the information related to problem you want to explore. I go to an attorney and try to make certain things not available to you pertenent to your investigation. Have I co-operated fully with you?

I know there is a difference between private and public legal matters when it comes to self incrimination.

Remember when the Clinton adminstration didn't work with certain agencies when certain files or evidence was requested. Did we all claim full co-operation? They exercised their rights to have that evidence or files reviewed for legality of the request. No one here claimed they co-operated by that action. Rush is doing the same thing.

64 posted on 12/16/2003 4:17:23 PM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Yeah, I remember it, sorry, don't have 10 years of old tapes for ya, IMHO his show jumped the shark about 4 years ago when it turned into the cigar, golf and namedropping show.
65 posted on 12/16/2003 4:20:22 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (En la boca cerrada, no entran moscas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: LittleJoe
It was the fear of being discovered that kept him from getting the right treatment.

This is what is called rationalizing your behavior. Its common among addicts because they can never be responsible for there own actions.

The strict laws are the only reason Rush is clean right now.

66 posted on 12/16/2003 5:05:25 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
The fact that he was really not guilty will matter not a whit to the ditzo-heads.

He abused controlled drugs. How does one go about such behavior without breaking a law ?

67 posted on 12/16/2003 5:07:22 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln; Ben Hecks; dix; tubebender; Don Carlos; oprahstheantichrist; nutmeg; cyborg; ...

68 posted on 12/16/2003 5:26:46 PM PST by ConservativeMan55 (A tiger is a tiger. Some things you can't change no matter how hard you try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
The article about this in the Salt Lake Tribune used an old stock photo of Rush when he was fat!
69 posted on 12/16/2003 6:08:26 PM PST by T Minus Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
They wouldn't have wanted to use the new pictures of him, because that might make him look good, lol.
70 posted on 12/16/2003 6:11:00 PM PST by ConservativeMan55 (A tiger is a tiger. Some things you can't change no matter how hard you try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: T Minus Four
CNN used a new picture.


71 posted on 12/16/2003 6:19:00 PM PST by ConservativeMan55 (A tiger is a tiger. Some things you can't change no matter how hard you try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
And when they come for your records, I hope you don't complain, as you're not complaining now.

Nothing in my medical records to worry about. I'm not doctor shopping for narcotic pain pills. I'm also aware that if I were it wouldn't be protected information.

72 posted on 12/16/2003 6:46:45 PM PST by steve50 ("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
I read those statements, and I am not sure I believe them. Just an opinion.

Rush has been back on his game of late, but he was not totally honest about his problem. Afterall, he didn't fess up until he was exposed. But, I'm rooting for him. We need him at his best. BTW, did you get a chance to hear or read his words on that horrible Supreme Court decision on Free Speech and Campaign Finance last week? He was never better!

73 posted on 12/16/2003 6:54:11 PM PST by thesummerwind (like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Eva
That is common knowledge. He had a pilonidal cyst.
74 posted on 12/16/2003 7:08:04 PM PST by thesummerwind (like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Here's some info for you on that.

What was the physical problem that disqualified Rush Limbaugh from the draft? Limbaugh biographer Paul D. Colford notes that: As for Limbaugh himself, the broadcaster stated that he was not drafted during the Vietnam War because he had been classified 4-F after a physical found that he had an "inoperable pilonidal cyst".

(Technically, Limbaugh's classification during his primary year of draft eligibility was 1-Y, not 4-F; he was only reclassified as 4-F after the 1-Y classification was abolished on 10 December 1971.)

I know about these pilonidal cysts, because I had one back around 1974. They're no fun!

75 posted on 12/16/2003 7:22:59 PM PST by thesummerwind (like painted kites, those days and nights, they went flyin' by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"Without the evidence they have no case."

Gee... I supose they could just call the real live Doctors to testify...

"Dr. Feelgood, did Mr. Limbaugh ever inform you of the other prescriptions that he had from Drs 2,3,4 & 5 ?

Here are copies of your and the other Doctors prescriptions we obtained from the pharmacies for you to review before answering... "
76 posted on 12/16/2003 7:48:46 PM PST by RS (nc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
It could be. I doubt if the left vs. right leg would fly, but if you obtained drugs for your back and drugs for your legs, you could get away with it. It depends on the courts interpret the law. But going to an ear specialists and also to your general practioner for your back, I think Rush has a solid defense against this law.

I wonder if I would be guilty of "Dr shopping."

I was having some problems with my right foot... Pain and swelling. An orthopedist that I had seen had examined me, and not really given me a diagnosis, but he said if the pain and swelling didn't go away in a week, to come back, and he'd run some more tests, and give me a "better" exam. He told me to take some darvocet for the pain. I already had a RX for it, but he gave me a refil. 4 days later, the pain increased, and I could no longer wear a shoe. I should probably include the fact that I've got permanant nerve damage in my right leg, and I can stub my toe really hard and barely notice. I have practicly NO feeling at all in my right foot (due to a back injury). The Dr was aware of this. My aunt insisted that I go to the emergency room, and they saw my foot and gave me an X-Ray. 20 minutes later, the er doctor came in and asked me when I had rebroken the bones in my foot! HUH?!?!?!?! It turns out that I had broken all 5 metatrarsal bones in my foot, 4 of which had been previously broken and healed over. He was amazed that I was able to walk, until I told him about the nerve damage. He perscribed hydrocodone for the pain, and one of those "flat shoes" and crutches, and off the record, suggested I find another orthopedist.

I did find a podiatrist for my foot, and did get another orthopedist, since this one had also missed my back problems in the first place, and once it had been diagnosed by my GP and a neurosurgeon, HE wanted to operate on my back! Yeah, right!!! I went to the neurosurgeon.

One other thing... When I went to the orthopedist to confront him about my foot, I took the X-Rays from the ER with me... I told them that I'd be finding another Dr. When the Dr looked at my X-Rays, he said, "Yes, you've got some broken bones in your foot." Well, a few weeks later, I got a letter from my insurance company saying that they had payed him some $300 or so for a "diagnosis!" I called the insurance company to tell them that he didn't diagnose anything, that they had mis-diagnosed me in the first place, and that due to his NOT taking an X-Ray, it cost me (and them) a trip to the ER! I insisted that they NOT pay him for this "diagnosis," as I didn't do it as an office visit. I just ran into the office to show him the X-Ray and tell him that I wouldn't be back. They responded that when I showed him the X-Ray, and he looked at it, rendering an opinion, that it was a diagnosis, and that they had to pay him. I called it insurance fraud...

But back on the topic, I wonder if I would be guilty of violating this law, by going to 3 different Drs over a period of about 2 weeks, and getting controlled substance RXs from these different Drs

Mark

77 posted on 12/16/2003 7:57:55 PM PST by MarkL (Dammit Vermile!!!! I can't take any more of these close games! Chiefs 12-2!!! Woooo Hoooo!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LittleJoe
"It was the fear of being discovered that kept him from getting the right treatment.

If it were not for the fear of the drug laws he may have gotten the trweatment he needed sooner..."

???

Rush had ( has ) resources he could call upon that would have allowed him to break the habit whenever he chose. He could have built studio facilities anywhere in the world and had complete privacy for as long as he needed, while still doing his show. His loss would have been his golf and his social interaction.
His criminal suppliers supposedly kept his secret for years - do you think he could not have found legitimate doctors who would have done the same ?

78 posted on 12/16/2003 8:01:51 PM PST by RS (nc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: thesummerwind
Thanks for the info, I'm not what you would call a regular Rush listener, just occasional and it was not common knowledge to me.
79 posted on 12/16/2003 9:37:50 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
In support of El Rushbo!!!!!
80 posted on 12/17/2003 3:09:48 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson