[Riley]

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.

I didn't say that it was.

In the article, she asserted that the pharmacy staff would call out her name for her order and also what the order consisted of, in a public manner. I am familar with HIPAA- that might be an infraction. The 'crazy' note on the order, clearly and obviously, is not.

My point was that the lawsuit and the resultant new story compromise her medical privacy far more than anything that she is complaining about, and I made that comment in response to another poster who had mentioned HIPAA ramifications.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

"My point was that the lawsuit and the resultant new story compromise her medical privacy far more than anything that she is complaining about, and I made that comment in response to another poster who had mentioned HIPAA ramifications."


I see your point. I agree that the "loud" mention of Ms. Karp's name and medication might be a HIPAA violation, but of course that is not what she is suing for. And for good reason. Even if that was a violation of HIPAA, it's a long way from a payday. She would have to prove actual damages - for starters, that someone heard it. Even then it would only be negligence, with low damages. Say she sues, and wins, and Walgreens gets hit with a fine. What's in it for Ms. Karp? Or more to the point, Ms. Karp's attorney?

The Florida incident is much more clear cut, and, I assume holds the potential for punitive damages.