Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inflorida

The question has a medical connotation to it, they had no right to ask it under HPAA laws. They just handed her a big payday.


10 posted on 06/09/2010 10:05:53 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: domenad
A big payday for a lawyer or two, that's for sure.

14 posted on 06/09/2010 10:07:46 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad
The question has a medical connotation to it, they had no right to ask it under HPAA laws.

Pregnancy is not a medical condition or disease.

82 posted on 06/09/2010 10:29:15 AM PDT by Reeses (Sowcialist: a voter bought with food stamps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad
You would think what the school did was a HIPPA violation....however...when you look at the govt website....it says....

"The Privacy Rule does not protect your employment records, even if the information in those records is health-related. Generally, the Privacy Rule also does not apply to the actions of an employer, including the actions of a manager in your workplace."

"The Privacy Rule does not prevent your supervisor, human resources worker or others from asking you for a doctor’s note or other information about your health if your employer needs the information to administer sick leave, workers’ compensation, wellness programs, or health insurance."

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/employers.html

This will be an interesting case to follow......

113 posted on 06/09/2010 10:41:33 AM PDT by BossLady (No More Corona in Arizona!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad

Wrong. She revealed it. On top of that the birth of the baby also revealed it. HIPPA does not apply in this case.


133 posted on 06/09/2010 10:50:16 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad

It’s a discrimination suit. Here’s what her blood sucking attorney had to say about the suit:

“If they’re going to single her out because she conceived prior to marriage, but allow people to remain employed who conceived during a marriage, isn’t that discriminating against her based on her marital status?” asked Gay, according to MyFoxOrlando.com.

She will lose.


146 posted on 06/09/2010 10:56:11 AM PDT by savedbygrace (Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad
They just handed her a big payday.

Not really. The maximum penalty under HIPAA is $10,000 per unauthorized disclosure. Federal courts tend not to place much stock in "pain and suffering."

226 posted on 06/09/2010 11:41:55 AM PDT by CholeraJoe ("Here is something you can't understand...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: domenad

Not real up on HPPA, but doesn’t it deal with info from health care providers and not individual patients directly giving the info? I’d hate to think that asking someone if they are feeling ok, and eliciting a response resulting in liability.


238 posted on 06/09/2010 12:01:10 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson