"Neverless, you can't seem to get your posters straight. phalynx made that statement, not me."
After a while, you guys all look alike to me :-)
I know what you mean. You guys all look alike to me too;)
From clear to likely. Since no case on Hipaa has been brought to trial yet concerning this, it will be hard to prove or disprove. BUT, common sense will tell you that the minimum neccessary means minimum. He can say 7, but he can't say he won't limit. Surely you can follow this logic. But, if you can't, I will help you. Please tell me how how many people are in a "no limitation" group. The answer: many... all.... limitless.. Next question. How many are in a minimum? It must be defined or it is limitless. Thus, the judge did not set a minimum. Instead, he set "no limitation". This IS A CLEAR violation of Hipaa laws.