Casey's Reaction to Found Remains was Video Taped

[Themis]

Sunshine laws start with a public policy recognizing the public's right to disclosure of public records. That's the "general rule." Then, the statutes go on to list many exceptions where disclosure is not consistent with public policy -- at least not at that time. There is generally no "balancing act" as to whether or not the public record is relevant or material to any civil or criminal case. The question is whether or not it is a public record and whether or not it falls under an exception or exclusion to disclosure as enumerated by the disclosure statute or any other statute such as a statutory privilege (think HIPAA).

 

[Themis]

Cool. I like. (I think?)

Be confident. You've got it! :clap:

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "But if you flip the coin, the comparison might be highly significant and HELPFUL to a defense which acknowledges the manic-driven, improper burial of a child-decedent in an accidental, wrongful death situation, skillfully emphasized by a defense attorney with nationally-recognized expertise in those areas. ..."

I strongly disagree. In the case at hand, there's still no rational explanation for the first 31+ days of what Casey did. If Baez's client were a mother who, from day 1, had reported her child missing, had been grieving for her child, (instead of being out partying in clubs,) etc., then maybe...
Baez won't be able to make the argument work.

 

[Chezhire]

I agree but it opens a pandora's box. Her "reactions" come into evidence. I don't think JB wants to go there. Take the 911 call - calm, cool and collected Casey telling the operator how she was using her own resources yada yada yada...

A lot of Casey's "reactions" are relevant and admissible, regardless of whether JBaez wants to go there. Take Casey's BF, for example. He'll be testifying as to Casey's waking up with nightmares, crying while watching that video of Caylee singing You Are My Sunshine" with her great-grandpa - all of these "Casey reactions/emotions" are going to be highly relevant at trial to portray to the jury what her frame of mid was when her child was missing.

 

[Chezhire]

The county stated that it's SOP to take inmates there if they are to receive bad news, not to be filmed. The fact that one goes to a doctor isn't protected by HIPAA nor is the fact that KC went to the jail infirmary. Just her PHI, protected health information, is covered. Going to the doctor isn't PHI, treatment received is. I doubt they filmed her receiving the treatment and if they did, that part can be ruled inadmissable.

Well stated, Marina2. And honestly - can you imagine HIPAA protecting, eg, a mere video of someone arriving at a particular doctor's offices? I can see it now: litigant arrives at a very particular doctor's offices...where only that particular doctor practices...and in one area of medicine only...would be pretty clear what type of field of medical treatment, at a minimum, the litigant was there to receive - wouldn't it? Yet, if a private investigator were following said litigant and videotaping said litigant arriving at said medical doctor's offices - that tape would certainly not be protected by HIPAA...
This is how I see Casey's trip to the infirmary - just because she was "there" does not mean that her mere presence there is protected. Only any medical information about TREATMENT she received is protected. (Yes, I know, the private investigator is a third party, but remember that the jail officials, who videotaped Casey, do not administer any medical treatment and aren't bound by HIPAA - the medical treatment is done by medical staff, eg, doctors, nurses, etc. One_Hooah_Wife described the distinctions between jail personnel and medical personnel already on this thread quite well.)
And it's pretty clear to me that this video isn't about medical treatment...and Baez knows this, otherwise, he'd have filed a Motion to Suppress, which he didn't. (BTW - motions such as Baez's recently filed motion aren't "released" to the general public. Anyone can call the clerk's offices and request a copy of any filing, and you can look up all filings online )

 

[Chezhire]

:clap:

You got it exactly right. The general rule is Attorney Jones said "*advertiser censored*" could be the basis for a slander action. However, since it was said in court or in the pleadings, it is an exception to the general rule ("Litigation Privilege") and thus cannot be used to form the basis to a slander action.

:clap:

 

[TheCynic]

HIPAA covers more than just the actual treatment of a patient. There are regs that address disclosure of a person's presence at a facility to family members and the like; they can't just give that out to anyone.

I don't know what the law is in Florida, but don't forget that some states have statutes that are more restrictive than HIPAA, and in those cases (where the patient is afforded greater protections than under federal law), the state law trumps HIPAA. This happens frequently in my state, but I also work in the mental health arena, so the privacy laws are extremely strict. It would absolutely be illegal to confirm that a person visited a mental health provider, for example.

 

[fortytwo]

You got it exactly right. The general rule is Attorney Jones said "*advertiser censored*" could be the basis for a slander action. However, since it was said in court or in the pleadings, it is an exception to the general rule ("Litigation Privilege") and thus cannot be used to form the basis to a slander action.

:clap:

:clap:

I still think it sucks...sometimes.

Okay, maybe only for JB.

 

[Chezhire]

HIPAA covers more than just the actual treatment of a patient. There are regs that address disclosure of a person's presence at a facility to family members and the like; they can't just give that out to anyone.

I don't know what the law is in Florida, but don't forget that some states have statutes that are more restrictive than HIPAA, and in those cases (where the patient is afforded greater protections than under federal law), the state law trumps HIPAA. This happens frequently in my state, but I also work in the mental health arena, so the privacy laws are extremely strict. It would absolutely be illegal to confirm that a person visited a mental health provider, for example.

Baez hasn't moved to suppress the video. While it's true that the medical personnel cannot release Casey's medical files/information, inmates have no expectation of privacy when they happen to be sitting in the infirmary, watching television.

 

[Themis]

HIPAA covers more than just the actual treatment of a patient. There are regs that address disclosure of a person's presence at a facility to family members and the like; they can't just give that out to anyone.

I don't know what the law is in Florida, but don't forget that some states have statutes that are more restrictive than HIPAA, and in those cases (where the patient is afforded greater protections than under federal law), the state law trumps HIPAA. This happens frequently in my state, but I also work in the mental health arena, so the privacy laws are extremely strict. It would absolutely be illegal to confirm that a person visited a mental health provider, for example.

:clap: You are, of course, correct. When comparing state privacy laws and the federal HIPAA rules, the law that gives the most privacy to the patient applies. Identity of the patient is also protected information. Psychotherapy notes have more protections than even other kinds of information.

 

[TheCynic]

Baez hasn't moved to suppress the video. While it's true that the medical personnel cannot release Casey's medical files/information, inmates have no expectation of privacy when they happen to be sitting in the infirmary, watching television.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Just wanted folks to understand that a person's presence at a provider is considered confidential, in case some think the laws apply only to actual treatment records.

 

[JBean]

Please stay on topic.

 

[LinasK]

HIPAA covers more than just the actual treatment of a patient. There are regs that address disclosure of a person's presence at a facility to family members and the like; they can't just give that out to anyone.

I don't know what the law is in Florida, but don't forget that some states have statutes that are more restrictive than HIPAA, and in those cases (where the patient is afforded greater protections than under federal law), the state law trumps HIPAA. This happens frequently in my state, but I also work in the mental health arena, so the privacy laws are extremely strict. It would absolutely be illegal to confirm that a person visited a mental health provider, for example.

I could understand that in the sense of a mental health clinic, or an AIDS clinic for example, but a jail infirmary is for any kind of treatment, not a specific one, so going there wouldn't be disclosing the type of treatment, but anyway she wasn't headed there for treatment...

 

[Chilly Willy]

Does anyone recall how we came to know about Casey's reaction in the first place? Who released that information?

 

[jjgram]

Yes... I thought I heard the Local News...
Say....
someone ( ? ) inside the jail said...........

" _____________ this is how KC Reacted when the took her
and let her see the TV Coverage "

** Don't know if they mean an employee... or an inmate ?

JMO
jjgram

*** Thanks for helping SEEK ~ JUSTICE ~ for Little Angel CAYLEE
MURDERED at the young age of 2 years old.... June 2008

probably by her Sick Mother KC

 

[debs]

Does anyone recall how we came to know about Casey's reaction in the first place? Who released that information?

Chilly, that's a great question. WFTV, WESH, and Local 6 all say they "learned" of the video. According to this one article, the information was released within the Feb doc dump.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Chilly, that's a great question. WFTV, WESH, and Local 6 all say they "learned" of the video. According to this one article, the information was released within the Feb doc dump.

Thanks for the response. We were aware back in December how Casey reacted when she learned the news, long before the Feb docs were released. I'm searching but can't seem to find the original thread. I really want to know how we learned of Casey's reaction because I seem to recall that it came from Baez.

 

[debs]

Thanks for the response. We were aware back in December how Casey reacted when she learned the news, long before the Feb docs were released. I'm searching but can't seem to find the original thread. I really want to know how we learned of Casey's reaction because I seem to recall that it came from Baez.

I don't recall hearing about it in December. I remember a lot of discussion after it was released in Feb. I guess we'll both go digging.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I don't recall hearing about it in December. I remember a lot of discussion after it was released in Feb. I guess we'll both go digging.

Maybe I'm mistaken then. Got a shovel I can borrow?

 

[debs]

Maybe I'm mistaken then. Got a shovel I can borrow?

Did they return Brian's? Do you need to dig bamboo?