6 ms·

>Wow. That violates HIPAA law. The counter-sue is going to be huge. Basically an open and shut case too. Assuming they were smart enough to "correct" the mista

by Nadya 8y ago

>Wow. That violates HIPAA law. The counter-sue is going to be huge. Basically an open and shut case too. Assuming they were smart enough to "correct" the mistake it may not be a Tier 4 ($50,000+) violation, but instead a Tier 3 violation ($10,000 - $50,000 per violation) of willful neglect. I'm not sure if each violation above would be considered a single large violation or multiple small violations ( 1 violation vs 7 violations is a major difference in penalty cost). There's also SLAPP. If litigation has gone on long enough to cost her $20,000 in legal fees I can't help but feel there is a lot more to this story or my understanding of the legal system is completely out of touch...

avn2109 8y ago
Twenty grand in legal fees in Manhattan is about four days of attorney time, if you're lucky.
leesalminen 8y ago
$20,000 is nothing for litigation these days. Most advise planning for a minimum of $50,000 or $100,000 to fight something out with a judge.
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  Serious question that I feel I already know the answer to but, how do people afford to defend themselves if the costs are that high?!
  - dmitrygr 8y ago
    Serious, and depressing, answer. They don't. This is why plea bargaining is rampant in America. It isn't necessarily very fair, because for many people this ends up ruining their lives. But facing the choice of POTENTIALLY going to prison for a number of years, and to jail for weeks awaiting trial, or pleading guilty to something that does not put them jail at all, they choose the latter (since a few weeks of absence from the world messes your life up quite a bit if you didn't prepare - you'd lose your job, maybe apartment). Even if that plea forever taints them in the eyes of employers
    - coding123 8y ago
      This is a civil case obviously, so all that jail stuff won't apply to this, but just curious... If cheap litigation is 20K, and "battling out with a judge" is 100K how come the first time I'm hearing about this is in a HN comment? Seems like no one is going up to bat against this stuff until it affects them. Reminds me of that famous poem "First they came for the ..."
      - dmitrygr 8y ago
        Good point. In civil cases the equivalent is a "settlement offer". Made famous my the RIAA. Pay us $5000/song you downloaded or we'll sue you for $5 million, and you cannot afford that. We might not win, but if we do, you're boned!
        retsibsi 8y ago
        > We might not win, but if we do, you're boned! Isn't it worse than that -- more like 'we might not win, but you're probably boned either way'? I may be wrong but I have the impression that it's relatively rare to be awarded full costs, and anyway you'll have to pay your lawyers up front.
      - Jach 8y ago
        Peter Thiel got a lot of flak for this comment: "If you’re middle class, if you’re upper middle class, if you’re a single digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much. This was the modus operandi of Gawker in large part, to go after people who had no chance of fighting back." It's somewhat hard to square with "litigious culture" criticisms of some parts of the country. But the details matter. Filing & defending in small-claims court is pretty cheap without a lawyer (and even with one is "only" in the small thousands) and person-vs-person cases won't be too terrible compared to companies-vs-individuals...
    - simonbarker87 8y ago
      Ok thanks, kind of what I guessed but as I’m not in the US I wasn’t certain.
  - amelius 8y ago
    And another question: why is the market failing here?
    - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
      The market isn't failing; that's the market rate!
      - MereInterest 8y ago
        The market is not failing to determine a market rate. The market is certainly failing to provide equal access to the legal system.
        aeorgnoieang 8y ago
        Or rather, the legal system is preventing the market from accessing it, e.g. there are something like 2 U.S. states in which one can currently sit for the state bar without having been awarded a JD.
    - wyldfire 8y ago
      One (modest) force that coerces the market: you nearly always must attend law school. Unlike Lincoln, John Adams, Marshall, et al, you have to get a degree from a law school in order to become an attorney. Apprenticeship is peanuts compared to getting a degree (provided you can find a sponsor). There's a handful of US states that still permit apprenticeship, but most do not.
      - amelius 8y ago
        Ok, then why is law school so expensive? It seems to me that classes could be offered online without practical problems, and exams could be organized on a national level.
    - jumelles 8y ago
      This is the market working; the market itself is thus a problem too.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Former trial attorney here...Would really like to know the source of those claims. $20k would cover most civil litigation cases not involving serious injury or death. $100k would cover pretty much any civil or criminal action. Beyond that, you'd have to be employing some extremely expensive specialists. And that assumes that the lawyer isn't handling the case on contingency. Generally, the reason people overestimate the costs of trials is because standard contingency fees are 30%-40% of judgements.
  - xapata 8y ago
    If lawyers are like programmers, the fees can easily be 10x different from one to another. I'll bet there are some $50/hr lawyers and some $5,000/hr lawyers.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    My divorce should have been an open/shut deal and never went to trial - still cost me > $12,000. I have another pending business lawsuit that I fully expect to cost ~$10,000 for what should be open/shut contract dispute. Lawyers are really good at wasting time while pretending to be doing something meaningful, and as a lay-person I have little recourse other than to play "Go fish!" and try to find another lawyer. So, $20K for anything of any substance doesn't surprise me.
SolarNet 8y ago
The quote is taken out of context I think (this is a tabloid) the doctor probably posted the information to the court docket under seal at the request of the judge or at least probably in accordance with the law.
- coding123 8y ago
  haha, that's really interesting to hear. I'm almost certain a Judge is also not allowed access to medical records. He most likely is not a covered entity. Beyond that while it might make sense to request medical records in a criminal trial, there's no place for that in a civil suit.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    HIPAA allows health care providers to disclose medical records in response to a court order as long as the order specifies the scope of the records required to be disclosed and is signed by a judge.
    - CodeWriter23 8y ago
      Court order != Filing Suit
      - albedoa 8y ago
        The docket persists beyond the filing and can have records attached to it under seal by order. Nadya did not draw the equivalence you are correcting.
  - phonon 8y ago
    If the civil suit is about medical treatment, do you really think posting responsive documents to the court docket is a HIPAA violation?
    - fencepost 8y ago
      If the civil suit is about medical treatment, do you really think posting responsive documents to the court docket is a HIPAA violation? If it's not posted under seal, then yes. Particularly if it's posted as part of the initial filing and not as a response.
alexbanks 8y ago
You seem like you know what you're talking about. A few years ago, I got a Facebook message from a girl that lived in my town. She said something like "This is really weird, but did you have shoulder surgery by X doctor last October? If so, that surgeon just did my knee and after my rehab told me that she thought you and I would be a good match. Would you want to grab dinner sometime?" I was really confused. Wasn't this a HIPAA violation? If yes, what do you even do about it? Feels like a cause for concern if your doctor is also trying to play cupid? What should I do/have done?
- robocat 8y ago
  Did you pick a nice restaurant?
- xapata 8y ago
  https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/filing-a-complaint/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/filing-a-complaint/index.html
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Camillo 8y ago
  Loneliness is a serious health risk, rivaling smoking or obesity. Perhaps your doctor was simply prescribing treatment.
- Nadya 8y ago
  I work in a tech-related healthcare field where I'm required to undergo HIPAA training and (often) end up needing to educate clients on potential violation risks. Nowhere as good as a lawyer but I deal with it on a daily basis at least. So take this as the typical "I am not your lawyer or pretending to be a lawyer - go speak with an actual lawyer" disclaimer. >Wasn't this a HIPAA violation? 100% yes that was a HIPAA violation and honestly anything shy of giving your information to people who actually need it (aka: any hospital/practitioner you visit who should be aware of your medical history) is a violation with very few exceptions (mostly legal ones). Gossiping about patients is probably one of the most common violations. >If yes, what do you even do about it? Depends how much you care and how long it has been since the event happened and you became aware of the violation. If it happened within the last 6 months you can report it online through the process xapata linked you. If it's been over 6 months it's too late to report. I'm not sure if "it happened but I didn't know it was a violation until recently" counts as a start date for the "aware of the occurrence" limitation. Would be a great question for an actual lawyer. You also don't know what else could possibly have been said about you or your medical history - so I'd keep that in mind when deciding if this violation is a "big deal" to you personally or not.

by Nadya 8y ago

avn2109 8y ago

Twenty grand in legal fees in Manhattan is about four days of attorney time, if you're lucky.

leesalminen 8y ago

$20,000 is nothing for litigation these days. Most advise planning for a minimum of $50,000 or $100,000 to fight something out with a judge.

simonbarker87 8y ago
Serious question that I feel I already know the answer to but, how do people afford to defend themselves if the costs are that high?!
- dmitrygr 8y ago
  Serious, and depressing, answer. They don't. This is why plea bargaining is rampant in America. It isn't necessarily very fair, because for many people this ends up ruining their lives. But facing the choice of POTENTIALLY going to prison for a number of years, and to jail for weeks awaiting trial, or pleading guilty to something that does not put them jail at all, they choose the latter (since a few weeks of absence from the world messes your life up quite a bit if you didn't prepare - you'd lose your job, maybe apartment). Even if that plea forever taints them in the eyes of employers
  - coding123 8y ago
    This is a civil case obviously, so all that jail stuff won't apply to this, but just curious... If cheap litigation is 20K, and "battling out with a judge" is 100K how come the first time I'm hearing about this is in a HN comment? Seems like no one is going up to bat against this stuff until it affects them. Reminds me of that famous poem "First they came for the ..."
    - dmitrygr 8y ago
      Good point. In civil cases the equivalent is a "settlement offer". Made famous my the RIAA. Pay us $5000/song you downloaded or we'll sue you for $5 million, and you cannot afford that. We might not win, but if we do, you're boned!
      - retsibsi 8y ago
        > We might not win, but if we do, you're boned! Isn't it worse than that -- more like 'we might not win, but you're probably boned either way'? I may be wrong but I have the impression that it's relatively rare to be awarded full costs, and anyway you'll have to pay your lawyers up front.
    - Jach 8y ago
      Peter Thiel got a lot of flak for this comment: "If you’re middle class, if you’re upper middle class, if you’re a single digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much. This was the modus operandi of Gawker in large part, to go after people who had no chance of fighting back." It's somewhat hard to square with "litigious culture" criticisms of some parts of the country. But the details matter. Filing & defending in small-claims court is pretty cheap without a lawyer (and even with one is "only" in the small thousands) and person-vs-person cases won't be too terrible compared to companies-vs-individuals...
  - simonbarker87 8y ago
    Ok thanks, kind of what I guessed but as I’m not in the US I wasn’t certain.
- amelius 8y ago
  And another question: why is the market failing here?
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    The market isn't failing; that's the market rate!
    - MereInterest 8y ago
      The market is not failing to determine a market rate. The market is certainly failing to provide equal access to the legal system.
      - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
        Or rather, the legal system is preventing the market from accessing it, e.g. there are something like 2 U.S. states in which one can currently sit for the state bar without having been awarded a JD.
  - wyldfire 8y ago
    One (modest) force that coerces the market: you nearly always must attend law school. Unlike Lincoln, John Adams, Marshall, et al, you have to get a degree from a law school in order to become an attorney. Apprenticeship is peanuts compared to getting a degree (provided you can find a sponsor). There's a handful of US states that still permit apprenticeship, but most do not.
    - amelius 8y ago
      Ok, then why is law school so expensive? It seems to me that classes could be offered online without practical problems, and exams could be organized on a national level.
  - jumelles 8y ago
    This is the market working; the market itself is thus a problem too.
gamblor956 8y ago
Former trial attorney here...Would really like to know the source of those claims. $20k would cover most civil litigation cases not involving serious injury or death. $100k would cover pretty much any civil or criminal action. Beyond that, you'd have to be employing some extremely expensive specialists. And that assumes that the lawyer isn't handling the case on contingency. Generally, the reason people overestimate the costs of trials is because standard contingency fees are 30%-40% of judgements.
- xapata 8y ago
  If lawyers are like programmers, the fees can easily be 10x different from one to another. I'll bet there are some $50/hr lawyers and some $5,000/hr lawyers.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  My divorce should have been an open/shut deal and never went to trial - still cost me > $12,000. I have another pending business lawsuit that I fully expect to cost ~$10,000 for what should be open/shut contract dispute. Lawyers are really good at wasting time while pretending to be doing something meaningful, and as a lay-person I have little recourse other than to play "Go fish!" and try to find another lawyer. So, $20K for anything of any substance doesn't surprise me.

SolarNet 8y ago

The quote is taken out of context I think (this is a tabloid) the doctor probably posted the information to the court docket under seal at the request of the judge or at least probably in accordance with the law.

coding123 8y ago
haha, that's really interesting to hear. I'm almost certain a Judge is also not allowed access to medical records. He most likely is not a covered entity. Beyond that while it might make sense to request medical records in a criminal trial, there's no place for that in a civil suit.
- Nadya 8y ago
  HIPAA allows health care providers to disclose medical records in response to a court order as long as the order specifies the scope of the records required to be disclosed and is signed by a judge.
  - CodeWriter23 8y ago
    Court order != Filing Suit
    - albedoa 8y ago
      The docket persists beyond the filing and can have records attached to it under seal by order. Nadya did not draw the equivalence you are correcting.
- phonon 8y ago
  If the civil suit is about medical treatment, do you really think posting responsive documents to the court docket is a HIPAA violation?
  - fencepost 8y ago
    If the civil suit is about medical treatment, do you really think posting responsive documents to the court docket is a HIPAA violation? If it's not posted under seal, then yes. Particularly if it's posted as part of the initial filing and not as a response.

alexbanks 8y ago

You seem like you know what you're talking about. A few years ago, I got a Facebook message from a girl that lived in my town. She said something like "This is really weird, but did you have shoulder surgery by X doctor last October? If so, that surgeon just did my knee and after my rehab told me that she thought you and I would be a good match. Would you want to grab dinner sometime?" I was really confused. Wasn't this a HIPAA violation? If yes, what do you even do about it? Feels like a cause for concern if your doctor is also trying to play cupid? What should I do/have done?

robocat 8y ago
Did you pick a nice restaurant?
xapata 8y ago
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/filing-a-complaint/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/filing-a-complaint/index.html
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Camillo 8y ago
Loneliness is a serious health risk, rivaling smoking or obesity. Perhaps your doctor was simply prescribing treatment.
Nadya 8y ago
I work in a tech-related healthcare field where I'm required to undergo HIPAA training and (often) end up needing to educate clients on potential violation risks. Nowhere as good as a lawyer but I deal with it on a daily basis at least. So take this as the typical "I am not your lawyer or pretending to be a lawyer - go speak with an actual lawyer" disclaimer. >Wasn't this a HIPAA violation? 100% yes that was a HIPAA violation and honestly anything shy of giving your information to people who actually need it (aka: any hospital/practitioner you visit who should be aware of your medical history) is a violation with very few exceptions (mostly legal ones). Gossiping about patients is probably one of the most common violations. >If yes, what do you even do about it? Depends how much you care and how long it has been since the event happened and you became aware of the violation. If it happened within the last 6 months you can report it online through the process xapata linked you. If it's been over 6 months it's too late to report. I'm not sure if "it happened but I didn't know it was a violation until recently" counts as a start date for the "aware of the occurrence" limitation. Would be a great question for an actual lawyer. You also don't know what else could possibly have been said about you or your medical history - so I'd keep that in mind when deciding if this violation is a "big deal" to you personally or not.