I will begin today to post intesting facts about ADA and related privacy issues as they relate to the work place - most of which will not be HCM related...BUT you will be able to see how the courts view the law and the responsibilities of BOTH sides.
here is the 1st:
Medical Information Given To Employer Was Exempt From California's Confidentiality Of Medical Information Act
Eufaula Garrett brought a lawsuit against William Young, M.D. for, among other things, invasion of privacy and violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CA Civ.Code, § 56 et. seq., CMIA). The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Young. The primary issue presented on appeal was whether the trial court properly interpreted section 56.16 of the Civil Code, an exception to the CMIA's general rule prohibiting disclosure of medical information to outsiders. The court ruled that section 56.16 permits health care providers such as Young to discuss general medical information about a patient without his or her consent, and that the information disclosed by Young to Garrett's employer was of a sufficiently nonspecific nature to fit within the exception. The court further ruled that under the evidence presented, Garrett could not maintain a nonstatutory action for invasion of privacy. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that: (1) Young was not required to notify Garrett of her right to request that information regarding her general medical condition not be disclosed to her employer; (2) Garrett's oral request that Young not discuss her medical condition with her employer did not comply with the statutory requirement that any such request be in writing; (3) Young's disclosure that Garrett suffered from itching and stress came within the statutory exemption to the prohibition against disclosure of medical information; (4) any right of recovery Garrett had for alleged violation of CMIA was waived when she openly discussed her conditions with her supervisor and coworkers; and (5) Garrett did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed by Young to her employer.
Garrett v. Young
here is the 1st:
Medical Information Given To Employer Was Exempt From California's Confidentiality Of Medical Information Act
Eufaula Garrett brought a lawsuit against William Young, M.D. for, among other things, invasion of privacy and violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CA Civ.Code, § 56 et. seq., CMIA). The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Young. The primary issue presented on appeal was whether the trial court properly interpreted section 56.16 of the Civil Code, an exception to the CMIA's general rule prohibiting disclosure of medical information to outsiders. The court ruled that section 56.16 permits health care providers such as Young to discuss general medical information about a patient without his or her consent, and that the information disclosed by Young to Garrett's employer was of a sufficiently nonspecific nature to fit within the exception. The court further ruled that under the evidence presented, Garrett could not maintain a nonstatutory action for invasion of privacy. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that: (1) Young was not required to notify Garrett of her right to request that information regarding her general medical condition not be disclosed to her employer; (2) Garrett's oral request that Young not discuss her medical condition with her employer did not comply with the statutory requirement that any such request be in writing; (3) Young's disclosure that Garrett suffered from itching and stress came within the statutory exemption to the prohibition against disclosure of medical information; (4) any right of recovery Garrett had for alleged violation of CMIA was waived when she openly discussed her conditions with her supervisor and coworkers; and (5) Garrett did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information disclosed by Young to her employer.
Garrett v. Young
Comment