confidentiality case

[John Eckenrode <jje1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

 I received a copy of the text below from a friend -- a forward of a
forward of an e-mail -- so I don't have any more information at this time
and can't verify anything. I don't know which court this case is in though
I suspect it's at the state court level -- it's Albany New York, and CHP is
"Community Health Plan" -- a provider. Given those many caveats I think the
outcome of this case has implications for researchers -- who hire
interviewers, coders to do record reviews, grad. assistants to read files,
etc.  I post this as a "heads up" and a general reminder about the
importance of VERY SPECIFIC training for 
coders/researchers about confidentiality.  

>>
>> RE: the Jane Doe, vs. CHP/Kaiser Latham case
>> notes from the plaintiffs Memorandum of Law
>>
>> (to refresh  your memory: a file clerk released confidential info
>> about a client's sexual orientation at a party where clients
>> co-workers attended. File clerk obtained info by reading the chart as
>> she filed the social workers notes.  The woman sued CHP, the social
>> worker and the file clerk. The suit against the social worker was
>> dismissed, the judgment was not found against CHP as this incident
>> did not occur in the course of their business. The judge disagreed
>> with his own decision and said that privacy laws need to be
>> strengthened, The case will be going to appeal.
>>
>> Plaintiff cites a lack of adequate training on CHP's behalf
>> regarding confidentiality and file clerks;  from the memorandum of law,
>> questions for the file clerk:
>> q:  prior to ( a class in late 1997: the breach occurred in early 1997)
>> did you ever have any discussions with any co-employees, supervisors,
>> anyone on the staff about the topic of confidentiality?
>> a: no
>> q. Did any of your supervisors or managers provide any instruction at
>> all about looking into the files and keeping records confidential?
>> a: when I first started, it said that ...this is all between us,
>> doesn't leave this room because we do have to read, sometimes have to
>> read the charts to find out where the paperwork goes.
>> q. all between us?
>> a. yes
>> q. who said that
>> a. (her manager)
>> q. what else did she tell you besides is all between us?
>> a. that everything is confidential, these are people's, you know,
>> files
>> q. how long was this conversation?
>> a. I don't know
>>
>> According to the defendant's Memorandum of Law:
>> "Ms. Adey testified that she read, understood and signed the Statement
>> of Confidentiality in the course of her duties at CHP.  The statement
>> ...reads...
>> i. confidential information may not be relayed to anyone outside the
>> CHP professional staff/provider referral network, without prior written
>> authorization, by the patient and notification of the CHP provider
>> ii. Breach of confidential by a CHP staff member will be considered
>> basis for suspension or dismissal.
>>
>> The Kaiser defense states that Ms. Adey's release of information was
>> in furtherance of her own objectives and not in CHP's, that is not
>> their policy to take such actions, and the liability is hers alone.
>>
>> Plaintiff attorney Greenstein noted:
>>
>> "...employer liability must be found as a matter of law, and not left
>> for the jury to decide...keeping that information confidential is part
>> and parcel of what Defendant Adey was hired to do as a medical records
>> filer.  Upholding CHP's obligation was a condition of her employment
>> (note she only received 5 days suspension)  ...
>>
>> "in order to appreciate...CHP's liability...Adey's conduct of
>> revealing confidential information is not deemed to be within the
>> scope of her employment as a matter of law  than the entire notion of
>> confidentiality of records by health care organizations would be
>> rendered meaningless and non-existent.  If CHP or any medical provider
>> is permitted to disavow responsibility when an employee breaches a
>> patient's confidentiality by divulging personal information from a
>> psychotherapeutic counseling session to that patients co-workers, then
>> the medical provider would never be liable for a breach of
>> confidentiality
>>
>> "...Unless CHP is liable to plaintiff for Ms. Adey's actions, then
>> they simply have no enforceable legal obligation to keep medical
>> records confidential.  Not only would CHP have no legal responsibility
>>for the actions of their medical records department but they would  have 
no
>>responsibility for a breach of confidentiality by the  individuals who
>>provide treatment directly to patients."
>>
>>
>> 


jje1@cornell.edu
John Eckenrode