Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Does this privacy case open up all similar gov't records to public inspection?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Does this privacy case open up all similar gov't records to public inspection?

    Cal.2d: State pharmacy controlled substance database doesnít violate patientsí privacy rights
    Posted on June 2, 2014 by Hall

    A patient does not have a substantial enough state constitutional privacy right to overcome the public interest in making prescription controlled substances records inspections at pharmacies. Pharmacies are highly regulated, and there are sufficient other general protections of patient information. Reporting sales of controlled substances through the state database (CURES) is not, on balance, an unreasonable violation of patientsí privacy rights. Lewis v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 471 (2d Dist. May 29, 2014).

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Cal.2d: State pharmacy controlled substance database doesnít violate patientsí privacy rights
    Posted on June 2, 2014 by Hall

    A patient does not have a substantial enough state constitutional privacy right to overcome the public interest in making prescription controlled substances records inspections at pharmacies. Pharmacies are highly regulated, and there are sufficient other general protections of patient information. Reporting sales of controlled substances through the state database (CURES) is not, on balance, an unreasonable violation of patientsí privacy rights. Lewis v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 471 (2d Dist. May 29, 2014).
    So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    apparently..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.
    that was a court's conclusion. Personally, in this circumstance, I do not see this as an invasion of privacy because absent any questions about the number of prescriptions that one person is receiving, there should be no other use that the gov't is making of this information. If however, they used this information as a means to require surrender of firearms , then I do agree that it's a violation of the right to privacy. Depends on the circumstances of the use, I guess.

    I can tell you from experience in the medical field, in several of the facilities I worked, we had patients who would go to every provider they could find in a community trying to get prescriptions for pain killers. It became known to the doctors in the community who the abusers were just by their repetitive visits to the clinics and complaints about pain and needing medication. There are definitely those out there that will try to abuse the system and get as much pain medicine as they can by any means, either to take it or sell it. I agree with the fact that those folks should be looked at by law enforcement and asked why they need so much medication, and also ask the providers why those patients need so much medication. On the other hand, I have heard that someone in New York was contacted by the State Police as a result of an inquiry into their medical records, and told to surrender his firearms within 60 days because he had taken prescription anti anxiety medicine in the past. Not sure if that is, in fact, true however, if that did happen, that is clearly a violation of privacy rights in my opinion.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So, it's a violation, but it's okay because the courts have said so.
    Well, privacy is always weighed against other factors .... how a court ruled that the ends justify the means on this one is out of kilter IMO...the public health benefits are marginal at best IMO.

    But does that data now become open records to the general public? I would think so ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 06-03-2014 at 12:45 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by RK3369 View Post
    that was a court's conclusion. Personally, in this circumstance, I do not see this as an invasion of privacy because absent any questions about the number of prescriptions that one person is receiving, there should be no other use that the gov't is making of this information. If however, they used this information as a means to require surrender of firearms , then I do agree that it's a violation of the right to privacy. Depends on the circumstances of the use, I guess.

    I can tell you from experience in the medical field, in several of the facilities I worked, we had patients who would go to every provider they could find in a community trying to get prescriptions for pain killers. It became known to the doctors in the community who the abusers were just by their repetitive visits to the clinics and complaints about pain and needing medication. There are definitely those out there that will try to abuse the system and get as much pain medicine as they can by any means, either to take it or sell it. I agree with the fact that those folks should be looked at by law enforcement and asked why they need so much medication, and also ask the providers why those patients need so much medication. On the other hand, I have heard that someone in New York was contacted by the State Police as a result of an inquiry into their medical records, and told to surrender his firearms within 60 days because he had taken prescription anti anxiety medicine in the past. Not sure if that is, in fact, true however, if that did happen, that is clearly a violation of privacy rights in my opinion.
    So , because some choose to abuse, everyone's records are now open to public review?

    Next all gun sales and gun owners will be public record because a few idiots decide ot use a gun to rob a liquor store, bank, home, etc?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B252032.PDF

    The link to the opinion not provided by the OP.

    Informational privacy....hmm....very interesting. I'll be scrutinizing all those "forms" at the doctor's office a bit more closely and requesting copies. I'll also be lining out all those "disclosure to..." parts.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    134

    yup..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    So , because some choose to abuse, everyone's records are now open to public review?

    Next all gun sales and gun owners will be public record because a few idiots decide ot use a gun to rob a liquor store, bank, home, etc?
    that's the way it goes. Some are pursuing criminal activity so we all have to be inconvenienced by having our drivers license scanned when we pick up even some over the counter meds at the pharmacy. But it's because some of the underlying activity is illegal to begin with. I don't like it either but law enforcement hasn't yet figured out how to target and arrest those who are abusing the system without having this information. Not everything each of us does every day is under scrutiny (yet).

    Gun ownership is not illegal, as far as I know, so there is no need to make any of that information public. Because we want the bad guys caught and locked up, we all have to suffer a little inconvenience.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Rahm is already pushing for all gun sales in Chicago to be videotaped.
    I believe that all political donations should be video recorded.

    That way we know who is owned by what company
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Rahm is already pushing for all gun sales in Chicago to be videotaped.
    wear a mask...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    We all may think we have privacy however if you possess a driver license or a social security number, you're an open book, one would be very naive to think different. Its the 21st century, NO Privacy Allow.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    We all may think we have privacy however if you possess a driver license or a social security number, you're an open book, one would be very naive to think different. Its the 21st century, NO Privacy Allow.

    My .02

    Regards

    CCJ

    Good thing you're not required, by any law that I know of, to have either one.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    North Michigan
    Posts
    1

    What is specifically meant by medical records?

    When the gun board says they may review medical records what exactly does this mean? Where do they access this information. Does it mean they ask you for your primary care providers info and want to see those records? Does it just mean they are accessing the health department to see if you are on the crazy list? Are they accessing the MAPS system to look at you prescriptions? Are they verifying medical Marijuana registry? What data base does this information come from? Where do they find the information they want. Is it as simple as if you pass the checks for purchase you are probably ok for CPL. This is Michigan I am referring to. If anybody has clarification on this please respond. Thanks

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    From Dingeman, Dancer & Christopherson PLC

    MEDICAL RECORDS LAW IN MICHIGAN

    http://www.ddc-law.com/news_events/a...ichigan%20.pdf 463 KB 97 pages
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •