4 ms·
IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Come to think
by Phlarp 10y ago
IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? Something about doctor-patient confidentiality?
Come to think of it, shouldn't these records as a whole also be inadmissible because of the whole attorney client privilege thing?
Or is this just a "sneak and peak" tactic to get insights into the opposition's strategy?
- dmix 10y agoNot if they are financial records rather than health records... I dont know why any court would care about mental health records for a fraud court case like this...
- mandevil 10y agoIn a trial over medical fraud (as the case in question is), patient records are the key evidence! Depending on the type of fraud alleged (haven't looked into this case in particular) either the argument is that the treatments were unnecessary, or they were never delivered, etc. But when investigating if the doctor committed crimes, normal rules of doctor-patient confidentiality don't apply.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> IANAL: Wouldn't any evidence gained from 'mental-health clinical records' be inadmissible anyway? No. > Something about doctor-patient confidentiality? Where it exists as a legal privilege at all, physician-patient privilege prevents certain information in medical records from being used against the patient in court. (And, in any case, it apparently doesn't exist in the Federal Rules of Evidence; there are federal laws on medical confidentiality, e.g., HIPAA, but they are not a general privilege against the use of medical records as evidence, and again they protect the patient, not the physician.)