|
Troubadour posted:HIPAA relates to Covered Entities which are very specific. Medical providers, nursing homes, insurance providers etc. If you're a business and you store someone's doctor's note in their personnel file, that is not covered by HIPAA because the business is not a Covered Entity in 99% of cases. Yeah, that's what I meant, exactly. I know I had to sign a HIPAA thing for teaching because of a very weird thing with how my school handles students with disabilities, so I'm aware that the periphery of HIPAA is a weird and complicated zone.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Randalor posted:Mark said he destroyed the copies he had recieved as soon as he realized he had them, right? I'm assuming that's what Reynar was SUPPOSED to have done, but had kept ahold of them for ~reasons~ and whoopsiedoodle, passed them along? Reynal wanted to join the CT lawsuit - he applied to be a temporary lawyer despite not being licensed in CT (pro hac vice) Judge approved Reynal's pro hac vice Reynal withdrew from the case; he never filed an appearance - the appearance is, my understanding, what would give him permission to see the same stuff that Pattis can see. Reynal received a hard drive from Pattis (we're not sure when) - this was probably bad because he had not filed the appearance (We presuppose) Reynal caused the contents of the hard drive to be loaded onto his Dropbox account Reynal sent a link to the Dropbox hard drive contents to Bankston (TX plaintff lawyer) Bankston downloaded the contents (by his paralegal, who said hey look how big this is). Bankston looked at contents, saw what he had, and tipped Reynal off, asking if he meant to send. Bankston saw the medical documents, and immediately deleted them because he knew they were protected and not relevant. Reynal responded "Please disregard" but then didn't apparently do any of the other stuff he should have like notifying Pattis Bankston, having not received a formal privilege request about the contents sent in error, now has them legit despite the defense not wanting them to have it. Bankston also shared the full hard drive back with the CT plaintiffs, because they have an information sharing agreement. The defense, notably, does not have that agreement, so the Pattis -> Reynal sharing was not appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Devor posted:Legal stuff Thanks! This a very helpful summary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
So basically, after not joining the CT case, Reynal should have deleted the medical files (at the very least) but didn't because ??? (I'm guessing it's because he's bad at his job, as shown by this entire cluster gently caress of a trial).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Randalor posted:So basically, after not joining the CT case, Reynal should have deleted the medical files (at the very least) but didn't because ??? (I'm guessing it's because he's bad at his job, as shown by this entire cluster gently caress of a trial). I imagine the excuse would be that it was a big pile of data and he hadn't gotten around to reading it all. He basically admitted that when he asked for another 10 days to go through it all and figure what should have been privileged. Folks just passing around gigs of data with no idea what's on it, what could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Devor posted:HIPAA is a law, with a scope, which is mostly surrounding doctor's offices. When you say HIPAA to a lawyer, they will tell you about the law, and why it doesn't apply. I had a brick-stupid subordinate at work once who told someone that they couldn't say anything about a customer of ours "due to HIPPO law". She did not understand why I was shrieking laughter in the back; the sudden mental image of a hippo in a sherriff's department uniform and smokey bear hat, wearing mirrored shades while roaring at the dude had a lot to do with it. This workplace had absolutely nothing to do with the medical field, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
My memory of HIPPA is that it doesn't even ban who you can send data to. Sending privileged health information is blanket banned by default, HIPPA just explicitly tells patient care providers who they CAN send that info to in the interest of the patients well being.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 18:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:Reynal wanted to join the CT lawsuit - he applied to be a temporary lawyer despite not being licensed in CT (pro hac vice) The only step you missed is hard drive went from Pattis to the bankruptcy counsel (I think Lee) back during the first sham bankruptcy. He claims he never looked at it and just gave it to Reynal when he asked for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Jury selection is back on for the Connecticut case starting tomorrowquote:Jury selection will resume on Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. The show cause hearing for
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/5bSoQ7IQ8MU A new Mark Bankston interview!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
Confusedslight posted:https://youtu.be/5bSoQ7IQ8MU Not gonna lie, he's getting really good at these interviews. Some of his earlier ones were more politician-style grandstandy like he didn't know how to best use the time for each question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2022 08:15
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
FoolyCharged posted:My memory of HIPPA is that it doesn't even ban who you can send data to. Sending privileged health information is blanket banned by default, HIPPA just explicitly tells patient care providers who they CAN send that info to in the interest of the patients well being. It's HIPAA not HIPPA but more or less, covered entities are restricted in how they can collect and disclose identifiers connected to health information, and authorization is generally required for those. You authorize a hospital to collect and use your information, and potentially to disclose it for things like research purposes. HIPAA waivers for research are a thing, but they generally require researchers to talk about why they can't get authorization in the first place ("we're looking at records from 10,000 patients from a 15 year period to find relevant cases"), why that's the minimum necessary to accomplish their goals ("because this is rare and we need to comb through 10,000 records to find enough to be statistically significant") and explain how they'll be protecting confidentiality ("we're going to put this on an unsecured, unprotected usb drive with tons of other unrelated data and just give the whole thing to anyone who needs anything that might be on it").
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:It's HIPAA not HIPPA but more or less, covered entities are restricted in how they can collect and disclose identifiers connected to health information, and authorization is generally required for those. You authorize a hospital to collect and use your information, and potentially to disclose it for things like research purposes. HIPAA waivers for research are a thing, but they generally require researchers to talk about why they can't get authorization in the first place ("we're looking at records from 10,000 patients from a 15 year period to find relevant cases"), why that's the minimum necessary to accomplish their goals ("because this is rare and we need to comb through 10,000 records to find enough to be statistically significant") and explain how they'll be protecting confidentiality ("we're going to put this on an unsecured, unprotected usb drive with tons of other unrelated data and just give the whole thing to anyone who needs anything that might be on it"). healthcare IT is magical
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:healthcare IT is magical Try GxP pharma IT
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
The FDA is reasonable and just.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
We have won the battle against ourselves: we love the FDA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Among many other things, Ben Garrison doesn't understand how perspective works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
That bullhorn is way too big to belong to Alex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Alex Jones to pay ou ultra$million dollars in damages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
This is so inaccurate, nobody expects Alex Jones to shut up. Fucker'll probably be spouting nonsense as they're shoveling dirt on top of his coffin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Lol he drew AJ at a solid 3'5".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:This is so inaccurate, nobody expects Alex Jones to shut up. Fucker'll probably be spouting nonsense as they're shoveling dirt on top of his coffin. hosed couldn't even shut up after opposing counsel reminded him of his right to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
He did correctly portray Alex's lack of neck tho Grape job, Garrison
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
What is supposed to be representing the new world order, a previously unknown species of grape-headed humanoids?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What is supposed to be representing the new world order, a previously unknown species of grape-headed humanoids? I think they're supposed to be human turtles from that flipping Master of Disguise movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
He's a bit grinch-y.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:Lol he drew AJ at a solid 3'5". And with no neck lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
AJ, famous for being censored by a judge he is actively calling a pedophile on his show. Oh wait, he's still doing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
The best part of this will be if Jones does somehow try to rein it in, his fanbase will think he's sold out to the
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:And with no neck lol His neck is freakishly largely nonexistent
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
Just checking in to see if Alex Jones's dick got posted yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
loving Moron posted:Just checking in to see if Alex Jones's dick got posted yet. it did, but it's so small it doesn't register.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 09:27
|
|
|
loving Moron posted:Just checking in to see if Alex Jones's dick got posted yet. No and it isn't going to. Unless one of Jones' personal attorneys leaks them, there's no way for them to get out. I trust Mark Bankston when he says he deleted/redacted anything like that before even his staff got access to things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 13:10
|
|
|
mark release the dick pics
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 14:17
|
|
|
loving Moron posted:Just checking in to see if Alex Jones's dick got posted yet. 8=D
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
ok sorry that was just a joke the actual picture is here 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Mozi posted:ok sorry that was just a joke Hello my baby Hello my darling
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
I had no idea those gay frogs packed so much heat. No wonder Alex was terrified and infatuated with them
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2022 15:18
|
|
