Skip to comments.
Prosecutors Can Examine Limbaugh Records
Yahoo/AP ^
Posted on 12/23/2003 7:42:00 AM PST by 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.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: donttouchrush; dopedfuzzball; hipaa; junkie; limbaugh; lovablefuzzbal; lovablefuzzball; lyingfuzzball; medicalrecords; rush; rushisgod; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 401-410 next last
To: m1-lightning
I believe this is a state judge, and HIPPA is a federal law. HIPAA applies to "covered entities" that provide medical care or payment; Hospitals, clinics, doctors, insurance companies, etc. They cannot release information except as provided by law. It has a provision for release under court order, --So this judge has the power to compel release.
Since the pharmacy prescription records are already available to the DA, he's fishing for other undiscovered doctors or pharmacies. Plus, the diagnosis & treatment records could help him counter any compassionate "medical necessity" claim from Mr. Black.
221
posted on
12/23/2003 12:34:13 PM PST
by
dread78645
(Sorry, Mr. Franklin. We couldn't keep it.)
To: dread78645
I read somewhere that some doctors had filed a lawsuit aginst the hipaa law just for the fact that it violates patient-doctor priviledge. Ron Paul has also spoken out aginst it, and though I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul, I do agree on doctor-patient priviledge.
222
posted on
12/23/2003 12:47:21 PM PST
by
m1-lightning
(Weapons of deterrence do not deter terrorists; people of deterrence do.)
To: m1-lightning
You left out one last part - But HIPAA only applies to medical records maintained by health care providers, health plans, and health clearinghouses and only if the facility maintains and transmits records in electronic form.
223
posted on
12/23/2003 12:47:59 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: PJ-Comix
1. Your emergency analogy is interesting but misplaced. That is covered by the a "justification" defense in most instances. But when the illegal conduct goes on and on, the imminent threat of harm disappears and is no longer excused by society.
2. They have dusted off the old quotes and printed them. I couldn't say if they are true, but I suspect they are. However, most would agree that Rush has generally taken a tough line with law breakers. I agree he doesn't speak out much on drug abuse...perhaps now we know why.
I agree that when you break the law you need a good lawyer and there is none better than Roy Black in that part of the country. That should also tell us something. Most folks go a lifetime without needing a really good criminal lawyer.
If I sound like I was moralizing it was for fun and to provoke a reaction.
Bottom line is that Rush is a admitted drug addict. If we all had a nickel for every entertainer that got hooked on pain killers for a bad back, knee, etc...... this guy is nothing special.
My point is that instead of just owning up to his behavior he is going to drag it out like Clinton. His supporters back him and his detractors will attack him and the rest of us will just listen to Tony Snow...or Prager or whoever. This unfortunately is the Clinton legacy.
Add Rush to the list of celebs that had it all and pissed it away! That's all.
And as far a heavenly accension and perfection. I lay claim to neither - I wonder if you can say the same for El Rushbo!
To: Solson
One leak, minor or major, by the prosecutor's office will unleash a torrent of lawsuits by Limbaugh's legal team. In the end, Rush might own Palm Beach. Ken Bacon only got a letter of reprimand in his personnel file.
We're talking about Democrats here.
-PJ
To: Tax Government
What the hell does that mean?
226
posted on
12/23/2003 12:49:05 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Chad Fairbanks
No that is not what the HIPPA laws says: HIPAA only applies to medical records maintained by health care providers, health plans, and health clearinghouses and only if the facility maintains and transmits records in electronic form.
227
posted on
12/23/2003 12:49:55 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Golden Buffalo
Oh.
To: Labyrinthos
You raise an interesting point that I've also been chewing over. From what I know of 12-step programs, the only way to recover is to take full responsibility with no excuses. This seems to be incompatible with defending oneself against prosecution for illegal drug use, since criminal defense always involves either denying the accused broke the law or making excuses for the fact that the law was broken.
Is addiction recovery incompatible with defense against criminal charges? If so, criminalizing drug addiction is counterproductive.
I feel bad for Rush -- he's got a tough road ahead.
229
posted on
12/23/2003 12:52:52 PM PST
by
ellery
To: ContemptofCourt
My point is that HIPAA has opened individual medical records to any "official" that wants them, for any purpose.
One more small step down the road to serfdom.
230
posted on
12/23/2003 12:52:55 PM PST
by
snopercod
(I am waiting for the rebirth of wonder.)
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
The funny thing is these drugs Rush took were legal. Juts not legal enough!
231
posted on
12/23/2003 12:54:47 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Destro
I'm only posting what my wife has told me. She works administration at the hospital and said the new implementaion of the 1996 HIPAA Act has more to it than what has been described.
232
posted on
12/23/2003 12:57:28 PM PST
by
m1-lightning
(Weapons of deterrence do not deter terrorists; people of deterrence do.)
To: Egregious Philbin
Rush had his maid commit illegal acts for him
He hold a gun to her head? She committed "illegal acts" of her own free will.
To: PJ-Comix
Plus lets keep things in perspective here. What this is is a MEDICAL problem.Agreed. Do you support changing the current drug laws so that cases like this (where the addiction started with legitimate pain) are treated medically rather than criminally? And should others who have been arrested for the same thing have their records expunged?
234
posted on
12/23/2003 1:00:24 PM PST
by
ellery
To: Bluntpoint
Records Management employee pulls a few files from the Rush Limbaugh Medical Records Warehouse:
235
posted on
12/23/2003 1:04:05 PM PST
by
Helms
(Liberalism is a faux compassion that condescends at best and subjugates at worse)
To: Egregious Philbin
The witch hunt, quite simply, is that the court is permitting law enforcement to raid Rush's records to
look for evidence that he may have doctor shopped for drugs. If they had evidence that he had committed that crime and it could be proven that the records were material in the matter, that might be different.
Basically, this opens the door to unreasonable search and siezure without probable cause. It is a VERY DANGEROUS precident. If Rush had his maid commit illegal acts for him, why do they need his medical records in a "witch hunt" doctor shopping. There is a disconnect here, and this disconnect tramples on our right to privacy!
236
posted on
12/23/2003 1:04:07 PM PST
by
rundy
To: Bluntpoint
"I am a lawyer"
Sorry to hear that! Have you tried amoxicillan?
LMAO!
You made me spew eggnog on my keyboard!
To: m1-lightning
I am just as in the dark as you are. These laws baffle me.
238
posted on
12/23/2003 1:06:12 PM PST
by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: Destro
Ok. I read Rush's statement on his web site. And I have read the judge's decision.
The issue here is simple: Should the prosecutor have to make a case that a crime has been committed, after a hearing in which the putative defendant has the opportunity to respond, before issuing an administrative subpoena permitting him to obtain and review Rush's medical records?
Or can the obtain the records simply by issuing the administrative subpoena?
The statute, on its face, purports to permit the prosecutor to do the latter.
Rush's (attorney's) argument seems to be that the statute, by not requiring any prior notice or hearing, violates Rush's constitutional (specifically, Florida state constitutional) right to privacy. That argument makes some sense to me. Government bureaucrats should not be permitted to troll through medical records for no reason, and on no showing of need, whatsoever.
But the judge ruled that, even if he were to agree with that argument, it would not preclude the state from obtaining these records here. The judge alluded to the fact that the prosecutor already had (in an ex parte proceeding in which Rush and his attorneys had no opportunity to participate) had some kind of magistrate make a finding of probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
This is the procedure and evidentiary standard used by the government to obtain the issuance of a search warrant in criminal cases.
The judge noted that even if he agreed with Rush's attorney's position and suppressed the administrative subpoena, based on the existence of that "probable cause" determination, the prosecutor would be entitled to obtain a warrant and re-obtain the records pursuant to the warrant.
It it not clear to me, from what I have reviewed, what Rush's attorneys had to say about that possibility.
Does anyone know if the briefs that were submitted to the Court are available on-line?
239
posted on
12/23/2003 1:06:49 PM PST
by
TheConservator
(Cogito ergo conservatus sum)
To: Peach
If you've ever watched a Law and Order or other legal show
You are not living in the real world. All law shows are Hollywood soap operas.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 401-410 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson