Palm Beach woman sues Walgreens over insulting comments on prescription

South Florida Sun-Sentinel ^ | March 8 2006 | Missy Stoddard

[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.

[Theresawithanh]

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.

[rlmorel]

Agreed. Unprofessional, but not a HIPAA violation.

But, sounds like the pharmacy's internal "notes" were justified.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

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.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

"The article does state she's spent the past two years battling various dependencies... but, if that's all it takes: then George Jones must have been "a typical lib," as well. (... and let's not even discuss Rush's self-confessed former Oxy abuse problem, for that matter...)"

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!

[Lekker 1]

Karp admits she is intensely private

Ummmm...I can tell she has done everything possible to prevent this from becoming public.

[kingu]

They disclosed it to her.

Her friend, according to later in the article, picked up the prescriptions, thus the comments were disclosed to a third party.

The question, in my mind, is if those entries were done by more than one person, and if they were, if I was a juror, I'd vote for her to pound sand. That she could cause pharmacy personnel to go at least twice to her file and enter warning data about her personality speaks volumes.

If I was Walgreens, I'd be firing a programmer right now for letting those comments appear anywhere near a customer's receipt. Sure, it might have been from a rotten tear job, but still, such comments should have been on the far end of the document if it printed on the same sheet, just to prevent such an occurrence.

[f150driver]

One clerk discloses private info (even if it was speculation) that the woman has a psychiatric condition on the patient's prescription receipt. Now other clerks who work other shifts see it and they "know" too. Information they had no right to know or speculate on is now in the open.

It's even worse if she really does have a psych condition. If she didn't, Walgreens could argue it was just rude and tasteless but not a disclosure.

I'm no lawyer, but I have gotten HIPAA info and lectures at work. We can get in trouble just for discussing a patient in an open area.

[bill1952]

>"CrAzY

First off, no adult writes like that.
That reads like a 15 year old hacker's rant.

That being said, I have been in the presence of incredible incompetence from teenage "pharmacy techs" who dispensed, along with meds, completely incorrect information.

The major chains that hire such minimum wage darlings to work in the pharmacy had best watch their six. - They have very deep pockets.

[indcons]

"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?

[Radix]

"Karp admits she is intensely private and can't help but feel stigmatized for needing medication to feel normal."

Intensely private until she saw a few $$$$$ looming with this lawsuit. I guess she ain't so crazy after all.

[Petronski]

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.

[jordan8]

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.

[TX Bluebonnet]

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.

[Mamzelle]

How is this violating confidentiality? Other people know only because she's made a big deal about it.

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.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

"I don't think the customer had any right to reveal the private comments made by the Walgreen's employees. Perhaps they can sue her!"

lol. That was going to be my next thought, but you beat me.

[digger48]

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 .

[taxcontrol]

HIPPA does not restrict the disclosure of records to the patient.

[bill1952]

Well, she may very well get little, if anything awarded in damages.

There are two parts to these types of action:
One is the phase in which either party proves it's case by a preponderance of evidence, and the second phase in which real damages are proved.

Pain and suffering, the fantasy of the leftist libs, only applies in physical injury cases.

Or in SF and other such holes, I suppose.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

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.

[andyk]

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.