Wisconsin appeals court rules paramedic violated patient's privacy
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, June 6, 2003
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
A Wisconsin court of appeals May 28 upheld a jury's verdict that an emergency medical technician invaded a patient's privacy by telling someone else about the patient's overdose.
Attorneys for the paramedic argued on appeal that an invasion of privacy occurs only when someone tells the public or enough people to effectively cause the public dissemination of private information. However, the court ruled that telling just one person could be enough to invade someone's privacy, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The appeals court agreed with the jury that although the paramedic told only one person about the overdose, that person turned around and told about 10 more people, including co-workers of the patient.
The patient sued approximately eight months after the incident, but died in a fire nine days later, on December 17, 2000. The verdict calls for the paramedic, her employer, Tess Corners Fire Department, and its insurer to pay the patient's estate $3,000 for the invasion of privacy, attorney fees of $30,460, and court costs, reports the Sentinel.
Go to http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/may03/143999.asp to read more.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Hospitals are not bound by InterQual criteria for determining patient status
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched