Posted on 03/08/2006 2:30:35 PM PST by indcons
For years, Janey Karp has battled depression and anxiety with the help of prescription drugs. Though millions of Americans do the same, Karp admits she is intensely private and can't help but feel stigmatized for needing medication to feel normal.
So when the 53-year-old Palm Beach resident read the Walgreens printout attached to her prescription last week for the sleep aid Ambien, she couldn't believe her eyes. Typed in a field reserved for patient information and dated March 17, 2005, was "CrAzY!!" In another field, dated Sept. 30, 2004, it read: "She's really a psycho!!! Do not say her name too loud, never mention her meds by names & try to talk to her when ... " The information continued onto another page but was not attached.
"I was devastated, humiliated and embarrassed," Karp said. "I honestly couldn't speak. I was trembling."
Karp filed suit Tuesday against Illinois-based Walgreen Co., accusing the nationwide retail chain of defamation, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Walgreens is investigating, according to company spokeswoman Carol Hively, who said that computers are accessible to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Walgreen's had every right to make such comments to the employees who may come in contact with her, for their safety, but those comments should not have been made known to her.
Who knows? I am enough of a cynic to think that this is not a true story anyway.
Agreed. Unprofessional, but not a HIPAA violation.
But, sounds like the pharmacy's internal "notes" were justified.
Is "Crazy", and "psycho" entered by a drugstore clerk "medical information" - or more technically, "protected health information"? I don't think so. It is an opinion only, and certainly not a medical diagnosis, as the article itself even states. Also, HIPAA obviously does not prohibit health care personnel such as the Walgreens pharmacists working different shifts from sharing at least some "protected health information" with each other. Even though the informatoin is linked throughout the Walgreens nationwide database, it is unlikely that anyone who works at Walgreens spends time reading comments made about customers other than the one they are waiting on at any particular time.
There may be some kind of lawsuit here, but I don't see a HIPAA violation.
The fact that she rushed to file a lawsuit for this (!) is the giveaway. I am all for Walgreens profusely apologizing on their knees to this woman , firing the clerk and giving her a generous store voucher. But in no way is this lawsuit material!
Ummmm...I can tell she has done everything possible to prevent this from becoming public.
"There may be some kind of lawsuit here, but I don't see a HIPAA violation."
There can be no lawsuit if there is no HIPAA violation, right? I mean, what else can she sue them for?
Intensely private until she saw a few $$$$$ looming with this lawsuit. I guess she ain't so crazy after all.
Defamation (and HIPAA violations) would require publication (disclosure where third parties could see it).
So, where in this story did this happen? It was printed on her bill, so the pharmacy saw it and she saw it. I didn't an explanation of where anyone else saw it.
She's frightened by the possibility that the type of medications she takes might be overheard by other customers, but she starts a lawsuit and gives interviews to the paper.
But the records were disclosed to the patient, right? not to anyone outside the pharmacy and the patient. She's the one who made the comments public.
After an "epidode" or two with kooks, med personnel often make warning messages so that other personnel will know how to handle the kook--speak low and soothing, and all that. Lots of kooks out there, how about protecting the personnel from them?
Usually, it's in some kind of insider "code" however.
The other thing on the chart one sometimes sees is "drug seeker"--to warn about the lies a patient will tell to get narcotics.
lol. That was going to be my next thought, but you beat me.
By that theory though, the receptionist in the DR's office can't know what the nurse knows, nor can she read the Dr's notes.
I'm not flaming ya. Just curious .
HIPPA does not restrict the disclosure of records to the patient.
Rush was talking about this today. Between this story and the story about the guy and the sheep, I had a helluva time staying on the road I was laughing so hard.
I don't understand the people who say that the pharmacy's comments were justified. They insulted and embarrased her, and it proves she's crazy? Some of you aren't making any sense.
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.