Prosecutors Can Examine Limbaugh Records

Yahoo/AP ^

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors can examine Rush Limbaugh's medical records to determine whether he should be charged with "doctor shopping" for prescription painkillers, a judge ruled on Tuesday.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Winikoff denied the conservative commentator's request to keep the records sealed.

Limbaugh's attorneys had argued that the seizure of the records from doctors in Florida and California violated the radio host's privacy. Investigators obtained the records last month after discovering that Limbaugh received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors, at a pharmacy near his $24 million Palm Beach mansion.

Doctor shopping refers to looking for a doctor willing to prescribe drugs illegally, or getting prescriptions for a single drug from more than one doctor at the same time.

The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office began investigating Limbaugh last year, after his former maid told them she had been supplying him prescription painkillers for years.

Limbaugh recently admitted his addiction, stemming from severe back pain, and took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio show to enter a rehabilitation program.

[Catspaw]

Who would've thought that Tommy Chong and Rush Limbaugh would both become victims of the WOD?

Well, Tommy Chong was a given :-))

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I just can't imagine what might be in there that he would want private.

Since you don't understand the desire for medical privacy, surely you would not object to publishing your ownmedical records here on Free Republic.

If you fail to comply with this request I will take it as an indication that you have something to hide.

[GB]

I said this on day one. Rush will (a.) have to pay a hefty fine; (b.) do some community service; (c.) pee in a bottle regularly for the forseeable future; and (d.) sing like Pavarotti to the prosecutors about anything and everything, I mean every single detail, that he knows about the case and other individuals involved. I'd wager Black is probably telling him "let's get this done and move forward," I'd also wager that Rush probably has the same mindset that folks around here seem to have in that "all this is just an EEEEEEVILLL liberal conspiracy born in Hillary's star chamber" and he's ready to fight them to the death, and as soon as he accepts the reality of the situation is and understands that even though he's accepted responsibility for his actions he must also accept the consequences, which will likely include more public embarrassment and groveling, this will be made to go away.

[Wolfie]

Well, Tommy Chong was a given :-))

Yeah, but I would have thought they would have acutally busted him with drugs. Instead, they went jurisdiction shopping to find someone to prosecute him for selling bongs, of all things. Witch hunts are popular these days, I guess.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

There is no right to a jury trial on a speeding ticket, 1 to 19 over. 20 or more over is reckless driving and subject to 12 months in jail and $2500 fine. Jury trial right attaches to that. All traffic offenses are reported on a criminal record check.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

I just can't imagine what might be in there that he would want private.

What an odd statement. They're his MEDICAL records. What if they say he's impotent? What if they say he only has a year to live? What if they refer to a family history of mental illness?

You can't imagine what might be in medical records that a person would want to keep private?

[Peach]

The patient's express authorization is required before the medical records can be released to the following parties: patient's attorney or insurance company; patient's employer, unless a worker's compensation claim is involved; member of the patient's family, except where the family member has been appointed the the patient's attorney under a durable power of attorney for health care; government agencies; and other third parties.

[ContemptofCourt]

Peach, please...read the entire site. Anyone's medical records are discoverable with a court order. Hell, even HIPPA says that.

Your blind defense of Rush is silly.

[ContemptofCourt]

1. "Full disclosure enables the physician to diagnose conditions properly and to treat the patient appropriately. In return for the patient's honesty, the physician generally should not reveal confidential communications or information without the patient's express consent unless required to disclose the information by law."

Here, it is alleged that Rush has committed a felony and has not been honest with his doctors.

2. The AMA's ethical guidelines are not binding by law . . .

3. A breach of confidentiality is a disclosure to a third party, without patient consent or court order . . . see that "court order" part?

4. "Safeguarding patient confidences also is subject to certain exceptions that are ethically and legally justified because of overriding social considerations. If there is a reasonable probability that a patient will inflict serious bodily harm on another person, for example, the physician should take precautions to protect the intended victim and notify law enforcement authorities. Communicable diseases and gunshot and knife wounds should be reported as required by applicable statutes or ordinances. Thus, the physician's duty of confidentiality at times must give way to a stronger countervailing societal interest."

Unless you have some FL case law on you, lets move on.

[longtermmemmory]

The black mail also disputes whom the drug dealers were buying drugs for. The maid could have picked up Rush's perscription but also used her pharmacist contact to get additional pills under rush's name for other clients. There is no way to distinguish the two.

It is rather odd that they would give immunity to a blackmailer in favor of prosecuting the victim for the status of "addict".

The issue is the fishing expedition. No one is disputing the legitimate pain. (not even the SA) The severity of the pain reduces the cause to confiscate the records before going through the legal notice process. Especially pertinant if the doctors are not being accused of being dealers.

[Golden Buffalo]

Legalities aside, what Rush did was wrong- period and it is beyond debate. He has condemned this type of behavior for years so he really has two choices: admit he is a hypocrite and was too strident in his criticism of the moral failings of others or admit his wrong doing and accept responsibility and the legal consequences. Those are his choices. And what an opportunity to be a stand-up guy and set an example. But what is he doing? He is trying to steer a middle course by blurring his moral failings and hiding behind Roy Black of all people.How Clintonian. Rush's behavior is scandalous. I predict the slow and tormented decline of a coward and I am surprised by the support he receives on this forum. Thank goodness Tony Snow is going on the air soon. In the meantime I am listening to Hugh Hewitt.

[Catspaw]

Rush's problems have been compounded by the statements his lawyer made in court arguing this motion, as I've pointed out in previous posts.

[longtermmemmory]

It is interesting that the Judge put a gag/restriction order on the medical records. If any part gets out, watch for a ruling to show cause why the SA offices should not be held in contempt.

[longtermmemmory]

I understand.

[longtermmemmory]

Florida has a constitution privacy clause:

****
SECTION 23. Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

History.--Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

***

It has been most used regarding medical records, access to abortion rights.

It will be interesting what the 4th DCA in FL comes up with.

[Alberta's Child]

OK. That makes sense. Technically, I believe a motor vehicle violation becomes a criminal offense when the penalty for it exceeds a monetary fine and/or suspension of driving privileges. In Virginia, it sounds like reckless driving could be a criminal offense but driving a few miles per hour over the speed limit is not.

It is fairly common for motor vehicle violations to show up on criminal background checks. I've held state licenses to practice in my profession, and as part of the application process you must specifically identify all criminal and motor vehicle convictions (except speeding and parking violations -- a tacit admission by the state, in my opinion, that these two are nothing more than revenue generators) in the last five years.

[Labyrinthos]

In U.S. legal circles, selective enforcement of a law has long been held as a legitimate reason to overturn a conviction or abandon a prosecution effort. The term "arbitrary and capricious" is specifically applied in cases where someone is prosecuted for a criminal offense even though large numbers of people are openly permitted to break the same law.

You're really stretching the law on that one. I heard the first hour of Rush today, and with all due respect, he is sounding like every criminal defendant that I've ever defended over the years and just about every druggie that I've ever known. One guy I know has had three DWI's over the years. All three were thrown out, not because he wasn't DWI, but because of so-called technicalities. He just received his forth DWI and he's blaming the prosecutor and police, claiming they're out to get him. If you know anything about drug and alcohol rehab, then you must know that one of the key elements is to take full responsibility for your behavior. If Rush can't take full, no excuses responsibility for his abuse, then I guarantee right now, he will flunk Rehab 101.

Also, the prosecutor may very well have political motives. But the undisputed fact is that Rush possesssed and used prescription narcotics without a prescription, which is a felony under both Federal and State Law. The fact that other druggies havn't been prosecuted for the same crime is irrelevant. Indeed, the particular law at issue in Floriduh is the "doctor shopping law," which has only been on the books for less than a year, so of course very few people haven't been prosecuted -- to date.

Lastly, the "no one else gets prosecuted defense" is stupid and makes Rush sound like the democraps we all despise. Case in point is the recent (or ongoing) prosecution agaist Greenpiece (of crap) under an obscure Federal Statute that has rarely been invoked if ever in the last 100 years. The scum from Greenpiece (of crap) are claiming the Fed prosecution is politically motivated because no one is ever prosecuted under the law. So what. The law is on the books. If Greenpiece (of crap) broke the law, then the Feds have the right to prosecute regardless of how many prosecutions have occurred in the past or their political motivations. And of course there is BillyBoyClinton, claiming that no one is ever prosecuted for lying about sex even if under oath. That's a pretty fair statement given the number of people who lie under oath or the penalties of perjury and the relatively few prosecutions that result. Nevertheless, Clinton lied under oath, the crime is perjury, and the Feds have the right to prosecute even the most people who lie under oath are never prosecuted.

[Alberta's Child]

If any part gets out, watch for a ruling to show cause why the SA offices should not be held in contempt.

Actually, a leak of Rush's medical records may have absolutely nothing to do with the prosecutor's office. During the Clinton impeachment scandal it was common practice for Clinton lackeys to leak details of his grand jury testimony to the media, then accuse Ken Starr from leaking the information in an attempt to humiliate Clinton.

[GB]

Where does this say that someone's records, medical and otherwise, can't be subpoenaed in a criminal investigation?

This isn't a privacy issue and it isn't a political issue, it's a matter of criminal law.