In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
No, the statute clearly says "unless otherwise prohibited by law". A search warrant is allowed by law and actually requires a higher standard for issuance than a subpeona. I think the prosecutor is on very solid ground.
In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
No, the statute clearly says "unless otherwise prohibited by law".
Stop the tape! The statute is saying that disclosure of medical records may be made without consent upon issuance of a subpoena, unless otherwise prohibited by law, right?
A search warrant is allowed by law and actually requires a higher standard for issuance than a subpeona. I think the prosecutor is on very solid ground.
Stop the tape! That is true about warrants. However, where was it prohbited by law that a subpoena be obtained in this case?
IOW, 395 says get a subpoena when you obtain medical records without consent. Why would the prosecutor not be bound by this law?