NY Supreme Court allows defense to question treating physicians
HIPAA Weekly Advisor, February 7, 2005
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIPAA Weekly Advisor!
In a malpractice case in New York state, the state Supreme Court granted the request of defendants Clifton Springs Hospital and Clinic, Zbigniew Lukawski, MD, and Robert Knapp, MD, for signed HIPAA-compliant medical authorization forms allowing defense counsel to interview the plaintiff's treating physicians, according to the Daily Record of Rochester.
The judge required the following conditions:
- Defense counsel must obtain a HIPAA-compliant authorization separate from all other authorizations
- Authorizations must state, in bold, that the purpose of the disclosure is not at the plaintiff's request and that "the purpose of the information is to assist the defendant in the defense of a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff"
- Authorizations must include the name and business address of the person to whom the healthcare provider can give an interview
- Each interview shall have a separate authorization and cannot be combined with a subpoena
The judge refused to allow defense counsel to interview nonparty treating physicians. The defense counsel agreed to the outlined conditions.
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
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- 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