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."
Are you serious?????? You can really equate public safety with tons of metal traveling at high rates of speed piloted by impaired operators to cameras in our showers??????
Your hyperbole is so far "out there" that it isn't even funny. If this is the substance of your debate, leave me out of it.
I'm Draconian when it comes to Drunk Drivers, as some in this forum have learned first hand....(grin)
I think after the third DUI, the state should physically remove the eye's of the repeat offender. (Yes, I'm serious as a heart attack about this one).
That said, this is a travesty.
I re-read this article and I didn't see anything about him passing out or having a history of it, though doubtless that could happen with the condition that he is experiencing. I believe the article says this irregular heartbeat affects 2 million Americans. You aren't saying all of them should lose their licenses? I agree with you that medically unsafe drivers need to be off the road, but there has got to be a line. To me, this is getting close to saying, hey, you're obese, you have high blood pressure, you could have a heart attack while driving, so no license for you. And it sounds like the reason the license was pulled was not the condition itself but the fact that he exacerbates it by drinking, though still, apparently, without incident. I think the article also mentions caffeine as an aggravating factor... what if he had told his doctor he drinks coffee? Do you think the result would, or should, have been the same? Also, judging from at least one of his comments about drinking after work, it doesn't sound like he drinks till the end of the day, when theoretically he is home and not driving.... though clearly I'm extrapolating here. But bottom line is that the connection in this case just seems to me to be way too tenuous to pull his license.
It has always seemed to me that some of the drunk driving enforcement in this country is misguided. I take a lot of issue with the continual lowering of the BAC for an offense. It seems to me that the better course of action is harsher punishment for the convicted and, especially, for repeat offenders. Doesn't it seem that every time there is an accident, the account says something like "so and so had a BAC nearly twice the legal limit" or "so and so was convicted of driving while impaired twice in the last fourteen months" or something along those lines. It just doesn't appear to me that the problem is BAC being too low... I believe the problem is slap on the wrist punishment, especially for repeat offenses. My other concern is that lowering the BAC takes some of the very useful social stigma out of drinking and driving by fostering a hey, it could happen to anyone, he only had two beers, kind of attitude. I'd rather see more resources aimed at punishing drunk drivers, rather than widening the net by constantly lowering the BAC. I'd be curious to know if anyone else has this reaction....
I think a two-tiered approach is good, to deal with what you were talking about here, and we should really come down HARD on third-time (and higher) offenders.
You and I see this the same way. We've had some spectacular DUI crashes here, most notably the school bus full of kids in Northern Kentucky killed by a repeat offender about ten years ago, while coming home from Kings Island.
Repeat drunk drivers are no different than child molesters in my view. They represent a Clear and Present Danger to us all, and should be treated accordingly.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with executing a repeat offender that killed somebody in a crash.
I didn't say the article said he passed out. I said he has a condition that can make him pass out. I also added that drinking alcohol exacerbates the condition.
If all 2 million of those individuals are engaging in behaviors that exacerbate their condition, thus making it more likely they will pass out behind the wheel, I think the doctor should consider reporting them to the BMV to have their licenses revoked. Since each situation is different, the doctor is going to have to use his/her own judgment.
I didn't say the article said he passed out. I said he has a condition that can make him pass out. I also added that drinking alcohol exacerbates the condition.
If all 2 million of those individuals are engaging in behaviors that exacerbate their condition, thus making it more likely they will pass out behind the wheel, I think the doctor should consider reporting them to the BMV to have their licenses revoked. Since each situation is different, the doctor is going to have to use his/her own judgment.
In reading the article the issue did not appear to be drinking alcohol in and of itself. It appeared to be drinking alcohol in sufficient quantities to significantly exacerbate the irregular heartbeat.
"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."
So be it. If a doctor is aware of a condition that can make it dangerous for someone to be behind the wheel, the law indicates they are to report it to the DMV.
Read the article again:
Emerich's medical condition, according to PennDOT, is substance abuse.
Not irregular heartbeat, but substance abuse. In this case, a LEGAL substance sold by the very State that is taking away his license.
If a doctor is aware of a condition that can make it dangerous for someone to be behind the wheel, the law indicates they are to report it to the DMV.
The law in this case, IMO, is being abused far more than the substance in question.
Do you have guns in your home?
jwalsh to Doctor:
How do you and your wife make love?
Dr to jwalsh07:
OK, I got the message.
How does the brownshirt doctor know WHEN the guy drinks?! If he drives to and from work, THEN drinks, NO crime is committed.
If I go to the local bank to withdraw a few hundred dollars, it makes one heck of a difference if I do it at 1pm or 1am.
I don't think that driving has ever been considered as a right in PA. When my daughter took driver's ed last summer, that was the first thing that she was taught. It is a privilege.
Don't blame the doctor. Blame the lawyers who would surely sue his a$$ off if his patient killed while behind the wheel.
No one has alleged this gentleman committed a crime. It has nothing to do with WHEN he drinks. The problem is that he has a heart condition that he is magnifying by his own admitted behavior.
The same would be true if someone had epileptic seizures and told their doctor they routinely take Viagra... some studies suggest this is a dangerous combination. Surely you wouldn't want to pass this person each day on his commute?
I agree he hasn't had due process (and said so in my first post). However, the very fact that the state has the authority to license gives them the authority to refuse license according to their discretion. This guy's doctor told the state he has a condition which could impair his ability to drive. The state exercised its authority under the law. He is going to appeal. Police state? Hardly.
Get a life, Junior.
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.