Casey's Reaction to Found Remains was Video Taped

[whiteangora]

Oh no... not at all.... I totally understood where you were coming from it was not at all defensive. I wear big girl panties and love a good debate. I will walk away though if people become rabid because that is not constructive... I've seen it happen too many times here and will not engage in those discussions.

It was my understanding from what I read that she was "in the clinic" when she was taped and if she was taped in the room where she was receiving treatment then HIPAA could apply. If she was taped waiting to go into to the clinic then that is clearly another story. I think we will just have to wait to see exactly where she was when the tape was made in order to determine whether or not her civil rights were violated.

I love & trust LE but in the heat of the moment it is possible that the jail officials might have become over zealous in their desire to tape and that certainly could cause a problem.

HIPAA is very, very strict... I'd consider myself well read on the subject from helping my SO study for his medical boards for hours on end.... and add to that my mother was in the hospital for a month from Dec - Jan. The hospital admin would not tell people if she was even at the hospital when they called. Not even the nurses that took care of her for a month knew that she had passed away after we moved her to ICU. They were shocked when I came to pick up her things from her room.

bold,me

From all of the news articles on this event, it seemed quite clear that she was in the waiting/reception area of the clinic while she watched the news and reacted.
She was not there because she had requested any treatment, she was brought there so she would watch the news.(LE plan)
She did not request treatment/medication until after she saw the news.

 

[It's Not the Nanny]

For what it's worth, wouldn't the fact that it's been broadcasted all over the news that she asked for a sedative and was given one more of a violation of HIPPA than the fact that she was taped watching the news in a clinic wating room where it's known (because you are in jail) that you will be taped and monitored 24/7.


I don't doubt for a second that the taping was done within legal boundaries or No Way Jose would be ALL OVER IT. He is only asking that it not be released.

Surely she was in the waiting area....why on earth would the actual treatment room have a TV with news on???

 

[Oakley]

Just because it was legal, doesn't mean it needs to be entered on record and released to the public.

If it is needed in the case.. then sure. Other wise, what is the point?

Don't get me wrong, i'm just as nosey as the next person and can't wait to see it. Snort! But seriously, if it's not needed in the case, then it shouldn't be filed.

Then again, JB seems to think that everything the LE come up wtih in this case, he should have a copy of. Which means putting it on record and all of us getting to see it....

Spangle, are you confusing me with someone else? I never said it needs to be entered on the record and released to the public.

 

[Spangle]

Oh no... not at all.... I totally understood where you were coming from it was not at all defensive. I wear big girl panties and love a good debate. I will walk away though if people become rabid because that is not constructive... I've seen it happen too many times here and will not engage in those discussions.

It was my understanding from what I read that she was "in the clinic" when she was taped and if she was taped in the room where she was receiving treatment then HIPAA could apply. If she was taped waiting to go into to the clinic then that is clearly another story. I think we will just have to wait to see exactly where she was when the tape was made in order to determine whether or not her civil rights were violated.

I love & trust LE but in the heat of the moment it is possible that the jail officials might have become over zealous in their desire to tape and that certainly could cause a problem.

HIPAA is very, very strict... I'd consider myself well read on the subject from helping my SO study for his medical boards for hours on end.... and add to that my mother was in the hospital for a month from Dec - Jan. The hospital admin would not tell people if she was even at the hospital when they called. Not even the nurses that took care of her for a month knew that she had passed away after we moved her to ICU. They were shocked when I came to pick up her things from her room.

Glad we got that cleared up.

As for trusting LE.. well... LOL! I not trust them. They are just like everyone else. Every personality that we have seen here, are also represented in the LE. Just like any other workforce. Some LE go to far. Which is why some criminals end up walking free. They see another cop do something similar and get away with it, so they do it too. <sigh>

I'm not bashing them. They are humans. And they seen the worse of the worse. And see them turned right back out. Don't make it right, etc.

I treat them like I do everyone else. I don't assume that the words coming out of their mouths is truthful just because they are wearing a uniform.

Yea, I know. I have issues. <grin> Did I mention that I grew up with family in LE?? LOL!

 

[Spangle]

Spangle, are you confusing me with someone else? I never said it needs to be entered on the record and released to the public.

Didn't say you did. I said that even if it was legal, yada, yada, yada.. You mentioned that you bet they knew it was legal and was basically doing it anyway. I was just adding to it, talking.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

For what it's worth, wouldn't the fact that it's been broadcasted all over the news that she asked for a sedative and was given one more of a violation of HIPPA than the fact that she was taped watching the news in a clinic wating room where it's known (because you are in jail) that you will be taped and monitored 24/7.


I don't doubt for a second that the taping was done within legal boundaries or No Way Jose would be ALL OVER IT. He is only asking that it not be released.

Surely she was in the waiting area....why on earth would the actual treatment room have a TV with news on???

It depends on if the person she asked for the sedative were bound by HIPAA laws ... if she asked a nurse or a doctor or clinic worker then yes, probably ... but if she asked a guard or attendant ... then probably not. If you are going to the doctor and mention to say, your babysitter, that you are going to ask the doctor for medication ... or have a particular medical condition the babysitter is not bound by HIPAA to keep this information private ... whereas anyone involved in your medical care or care of your medical records are.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I think many of you are referencing or have questions about the HIPAA Privacy Rule; it does not apply here. HIPAA covered entities include some doctors' offices that conduct certain transactions in electronic form, health care clearinghouses, and health care plans. Title I was designed to protect health coverage through a job change or loss; titles II and III were designed to help manage and protect the privacy of personal health information, and standardize and encourage electronic health information transactions, respectively.

Even if this were involving a HIPAA covered entity, some exclusions exist; they include exceptions for warrants, law enforcement requests, etc.

While the discussed scenarios are not necessarily in violation of HIPAA regulations, they're still a violation of privacy (excluding the jail video, I doubt the same privacy laws exist in prison) that may fall under some other section of law. That's out of my league so I wouldn't know what grounds there are for a lawsuit of this type.

More information about HIPAA (if you're a masochist) can be found at: http://www.hipaa.org

(Disclaimer: I have experience in the healthcare industry, including information and computer security and digital forensics experience therein, but I am NOT a lawyer; everything I say can be and probably is wrong. )

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I think many of you are referencing or have questions about the HIPAA Privacy Rule; it does not apply here. HIPAA covered entities include some doctors' offices that conduct certain transactions in electronic form, health care clearinghouses, and health care plans. Title I was designed to protect health coverage through a job change or loss; titles II and III were designed to help manage and protect the privacy of personal health information, and standardize and encourage electronic health information transactions, respectively.

Even if this were involving a HIPAA covered entity, some exclusions exist; they include exceptions for warrants, law enforcement requests, etc.

While the discussed scenarios are not necessarily in violation of HIPAA regulations, they're still a violation of privacy (excluding the jail video, I doubt the same privacy laws exist in prison) that may fall under some other section of law. That's out of my league so I wouldn't know what grounds there are for a lawsuit of this type.

More information about HIPAA (if you're a masochist) can be found at: http://www.hipaa.org

(Disclaimer: I have experience in the healthcare industry, including information and computer security and digital forensics experience therein, but I am NOT a lawyer; everything I say can be and probably is wrong. )

I am sorry to disagree ... but as an RN and for a time Defense Med/Mal attorney, I know that HIPAA does apply, even to inmates! But as I said before ... it depends on if the person releasing information was or was not bound by this regulation.

Snipped

Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information pertaining to “inmates” has been deemed “protected health information,” called “PHI.” Although excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates’ PHI.

3 This protection is further broadened by the loose definition afforded to “inmates.” An “inmate” is defined as a “person incarcerated in or otherwise confined to a correctional institution.” See http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/part2.html (visited 9/30/02). “Correctional Institution” is defined as “ any penal or correctional facility, jail, reformatory, detention center, work farm, halfway house, or residential community program operated by, or under contract to, the United States, a state, a territory, a political subdivision, of a state or territory, or an Indian tribe, for the confinement or rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of a criminal offense or other persons held in lawful custody.” See http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/part2.html (visited 9/30/02). Both of these definitions were created with wide latitude for interpretation because DHHS believes these definitions are “necessary to explain the privacy rights and protections of inmates in this regulation.” See id. Therefore, HIPAA applies to a class of persons that includes incarcerated persons as well as other persons detained for criminal law violations.

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

 

[shgrbkr]

If given the chance to see the video, I'd watch it, HIPAA or no HIPAA.

 

[Friday]

Unless LE also has a tape of KC showing her lack of concern for the November "discovery of bones" at JBP, I'm really worried that this new videotape showing her doubling over, "in agony" could totally backfire on LE/SA by making her look like a grief-stricken, (ergo innocent) mother.

Unlike many of us here, I have little faith that an unbiased jury would completely believe that her reaction on 12/11 proved Consciousness of Guilt merely because the remains hadn't even been identified yet. I mean, c'mon, can't you just hear the Defense arguing that there's no comparison between JBP discovery of a bag of little stones and chicken bones, which LE deemed meaningless/inconclusive from the get-go On the other hand, the discovery on December 11th, was a skull and bones from a little child Caylee's age which were discovered only a few hundred yards from the Anthony home, and--JB would quickly point out--KC knew that that the remains of abducted children were usually located near the child's home. Also, LE made a very somber announcement very quickly from the site of the 12/11 discovery.

I'm probably overthinking this videotape issue, but I sure don't want anything to get in the way of convicting that vile, evil woman.

 

[LinasK]

I also worked in the healthcare industry for 13 years in hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care. HIPPA laws don't apply here because as many other posters have noted: Casey was NOT receiving treatment when she received the news! If they had continued filming while she got her meds or breathing treatment, that would be different.
F.Y.I., not that it applies to a jail situation, but I have been in an Emergency Room that had TV's on in the inidividual patient treatment rooms, and yes the news could be gotten.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I am sorry to disagree ... but as an RN and for a time Defense Med/Mal attorney, I know that HIPAA does apply, even to inmates! But as I said before ... it depends on if the person releasing information was or was not bound by this regulation.

Snipped

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

If they're a covered entity, I'm not certain that video qualifies as PHI. Does it have sound? What information is being recorded? Is there anything personally identifying being revealed in conjunction with health information? As you know, institutions under HIPAA regulation don't (and can't) take a violation lightly, it seems unlikely that we here on a message board would know better than the managers of this information.

 

[FootballMom]

I think many of you are referencing or have questions about the HIPAA Privacy Rule; it does not apply here. HIPAA covered entities include some doctors' offices that conduct certain transactions in electronic form, health care clearinghouses, and health care plans. Title I was designed to protect health coverage through a job change or loss; titles II and III were designed to help manage and protect the privacy of personal health information, and standardize and encourage electronic health information transactions, respectively.

Even if this were involving a HIPAA covered entity, some exclusions exist; they include exceptions for warrants, law enforcement requests, etc.

While the discussed scenarios are not necessarily in violation of HIPAA regulations, they're still a violation of privacy (excluding the jail video, I doubt the same privacy laws exist in prison) that may fall under some other section of law. That's out of my league so I wouldn't know what grounds there are for a lawsuit of this type.

More information about HIPAA (if you're a masochist) can be found at: http://www.hipaa.org

(Disclaimer: I have experience in the healthcare industry, including information and computer security and digital forensics experience therein, but I am NOT a lawyer; everything I say can be and probably is wrong. )

also... for those that are interested in the ethical & professional challenges that medical providers are faced with while caring for prisoners you can read an excellent article: Hard Time and Health Care: The Squeeze on Medicine Behind BarsPrison physicians confront internal and external pressures in attempting to deliver quality care to incarcerated patients.E. written by Bernadette McKinney, JD, PhD

this is an outstanding piece that touches on the 8th Amendment, institutional atmosphere and medical ethics.... and might I add basic moral decency.

 

[Oakley]

Didn't say you did. I said that even if it was legal, yada, yada, yada.. You mentioned that you bet they knew it was legal and was basically doing it anyway. I was just adding to it, talking.

Musta misunderstood you - no problemo

 

[FootballMom]

If they're a covered entity, I'm not certain that video qualifies as PHI. Does it have sound? What information is being recorded? Is there anything personally identifying being revealed in conjunction with health information? As you know, institutions under HIPAA regulation don't (and can't) take a violation lightly, it seems unlikely that we here on a message board would know better than the managers of this information.

a simple photograph qualifies under the Right to Privacy... if the tape shows her receiving treatment or in an examination room then it most certainly qualifies. If it was made in the waiting area then the best she and Baez could hope to acheive is an attempt to argue her 8th Amendment rights were violated.

 

[FootballMom]

I am sorry to disagree ... but as an RN and for a time Defense Med/Mal attorney, I know that HIPAA does apply, even to inmates! But as I said before ... it depends on if the person releasing information was or was not bound by this regulation.

Snipped

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf

 

[ChasingMoxie]

a simple photograph qualifies under the Right to Privacy... if the tape shows her receiving treatment or in an examination room then it most certainly qualifies. If it was made in the waiting area then the best she and Baez could hope to acheive is an attempt to argue her 8th Amendment rights were violated.

Agreed. I'm operating under the assumption that the latter is the case, but I guess we really don't know where the tape was made.

 

[debs]

Jose's objection wasn't medical/HIPAA ....it was "outrageous and cruel" that someone would videotape such a traumatic moment for his client. That says it all for me.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

If they're a covered entity, I'm not certain that video qualifies as PHI. Does it have sound? What information is being recorded? Is there anything personally identifying being revealed in conjunction with health information? As you know, institutions under HIPAA regulation don't (and can't) take a violation lightly, it seems unlikely that we here on a message board would know better than the managers of this information.

That was my point too ... whether the person she spoke to, and who subsequently released information, was a
"covered entity" ... if it was a prison (jail)guard not assigned to her as a healthcare facilitator or clinic worker then I think that they were not bound by HIPAA. What I was referring to in my post was that you said HIPAA did not apply here ... to me that was a blanket statement ... when in fact, we do not know whether or not HIPAA applied, because we do not know the exact circumstances of Casey asking for meds ... or of the taping. Inmates DO have protections under the HIPAA ruling the same as we all do ... that said, I believe that LE was savvy enough to find a work around. For example ... as been hypothesized by several posters ... if Casey was in the waiting area accompanied by an attendant or guard -not affiliated with the clinic- and being taped ... she has NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY! I have personally represented a penal institution accused of malpractice in the past and we were able to, under exception, obtain medical information. Under HIPAA, even if we had wanted to, we could not have released PMI to the media, however. It eventually did become part of public record when the case came to trial. When this case come to trial ... much more of Casey's PMI will be made public ... including her psych evals! HIPAA is the reason that her psych evals ... though a part of discovery ... have not been made available to the media or public. Hope that is clear.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Also ... I think from what we were told ... "Casey asked for a sedative" ... is a lot different than say hearing "Casey was administered Ativan 1 mg po upon request" ... To me this says that the person she asked was not the person who was responsible for giving her the medication ... this is only a grand assumption of course!