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.

[dread78645]

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.

[m1-lightning]

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.

[Destro]

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.

[Golden Buffalo]

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!

[Political Junkie Too]

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

[Destro]

What the hell does that mean?

[Destro]

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.

[Golden Buffalo]

Oh.

[ellery]

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.

[snopercod]

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.

[Destro]

The funny thing is these drugs Rush took were legal. Juts not legal enough!

[m1-lightning]

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.

[PeyersPatches]

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.

[ellery]

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?

[Helms]

Records Management employee pulls a few files from the Rush Limbaugh Medical Records Warehouse:

[rundy]

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!

[PeyersPatches]

"I am a lawyer"

Sorry to hear that! Have you tried amoxicillan?

---

LMAO!

You made me spew eggnog on my keyboard!

[Destro]

I am just as in the dark as you are. These laws baffle me.

[TheConservator]

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?

[LittleJoe]

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.