Actually, as I go back and read closely, it appears that the article shows the hospital following the laws exactly as they are written.
The "medical records" mentioned, that the family already has, appear to be the copies of the consent forms and decision-making authorization signed when Duncan was admitted.
And the article says explicitly that they were told that they couldn't access his records because their authorization had expired - which would have occurred at his death.
Let me make one thing clear - there is no iffiness about the medical POA, and the fact that it expires at death. That's the law. (A POA is authority to decide for another person, as if that person was speaking, and once a person dies, the deceased no longer owns or controls anything so "speaking as he would speak" is legally not doable.) The only question would be as to whether the hospital might choose to kinda ignore the law, or not.
Notice in the article that mention is made of the son of Duncan. That further confirms my point. In all likelihood, he's likely to be the legal representative of the estate, and as such is going to be the one whose voice matters now, not the sister. (But a probate court might have to make that determination first, that he speaks for the estate, before they can proceed.)
Notice that the article - even though the writer and the family don't understand the process - outlines the very items going on that I mentioned are to be expected.
A special code was included in the records, which was supposed to provide the family with access to Duncans electronic records, but the code did not work, Wureh said.
I called for a new code and was told that they could no longer release information to me, she said.
She said she was later told by a patient liaison that the hospital could release further information only to Duncans 19-year-old son, Karsiah Eric Duncan.