Posted on 05/01/2018 11:07:37 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Dr. Harold Bornstein said he felt "raped" after White House aide Keith Schiller and lawyer Alan Garten showed up unannounced and took Trump's files.
In February 2017, a top White House aide who was Trump's longtime personal bodyguard, along with the top lawyer at the Trump Organization and a third man, showed up at the office of Trump's New York doctor without notice and took all the president's medical records.
The incident, which Dr. Harold Bornstein described as a "raid," took place two days after Bornstein told a newspaper that he had prescribed a hair growth medicine for the president for years.
In an exclusive interview in his Park Avenue office, Bornstein told NBC News that he felt "raped, frightened and sad" when Keith Schiller and another "large man" came to his office to collect the president's records on the morning of Feb. 3, 2017. At the time, Schiller, who had long worked as Trump's bodyguard, was serving as director of Oval Office operations at the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Love the quotes around “news”.
Perfect.
Fits.
Apt.
Appropriate.
Well, based on the picture, if anyone would know about hair growth, this would be the guy.
So you provide medical care to a man who became President of the United States and are surprised when someone doesn’t think your file system is secure enough.
Here’s a newsflash doc, it’s not.
Any you’re 60 years old. Get a haircut.
Tiny fiddle time.
More fakeness.
Don’t the medical records belong to the patient?
He showed the world he couldn’t be trusted. Why would President Trump leave his records with him
Precisely. Today's fake "narrative".
Copies of the record must be made available to the patient, but the records belong to the practice.
This doc violated HIPAA though when he disclosed that the President took Propecia.
Yes.
The incident, which Dr. Harold Bornstein described as a “raid,” took place two days after Bornstein told a newspaper that he had prescribed a hair growth medicine for the president for years.
...
I don’t blame Trump for getting his files. They are his files. The doctor should have kept his mouth shut.
NBC is being evil as usual by portraying it as something else.
Aren’t there HIPPA laws that forbid doctors from sharing medical info about their patients without first getting patient approval?
The Doc should have known better.
Maybe he got carried away with all the fuss and excitement that surrounds anything directly related to Pres. Trump.
What’s up, Doc? You know The Donald, and should have known how touchy Mr. Trump would be about such personal info.
We would probably be better off if the MSM engaged in at least half the hysteria over Barak Hussein sealing ALL his records in all 50 states and overseas territories.
Apparently he never heard of HIPPA. PULL his license.
So he discusses his medical treatment of Trump to the New York Times and he wonders why Trump took possession of his own files? In what bizarre world is revealing a prescription not a violation of privacy?
“Get a haircut.”
He reminds me of the researcher or doctor in the movie, Independence Day. The one who had a face-to-face with the alien.
Doc violated HIPPA.
Not sure what the law is to the actual records, but if the bodyguards seized them they may be in violation also.
And if the records are on paper, that is rather foolish.
“Copies of the record must be made available to the patient, but the records belong to the practice.”
Actually, it depends on state law, because the federal law is ambiguous on the matter. Most states say the physical record belongs to the practice, but New Hampshire says it belongs to the patient, and 21 states, including New York, don’t specify one way or another who owns the record:
http://www.healthinfolaw.org/comparative-analysis/who-owns-medical-records-50-state-comparison
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.