4 ms·

As always it is all about intent. Did the OP agree to have his information disclosed in return to getting disability insurance? If they did then there is no pr

As always it is all about intent. Did the OP agree to have his information disclosed in return to getting disability insurance? If they did then there is no problem here. It seems that people are getting hung up on the wrong issue. Filling in and signing endless pieces of paper at the doctor's office is the most annoying experience. I wish my signature was applied directly. Of course, I would like to be informed of what I agree to in simple brief terms. Putting massive documents in front of me that will sign automatically anyway makes no difference.

ldoughty 7y ago
The first few bullet points scream "you authorize SF to get your medical information and history". This is an application for long term disability, so they are trying to prove he's medically disabled by getting documentation from an authoritative source, which could only be accomplished by going to the doctors offices and insurers directly. Isn't this basically power of attorney? He signed a form that explicitly stated he authorized SF can get his medical information (along other things). What's the purpose of such a form except to NOT go back to him to sign 12 documents from different companies to release info one by one?
- endogui 7y ago
  Well, here he is claiming they didn't sign that document at all: the signature was copied from elsewhere.
  - ldoughty 7y ago
    My interpretation was that this document was what he signed, since his tweet talked about his signature being on a form authorizing more specific things
aphyr 7y ago
<sigh> Again, if you read the thread, you would also know that I could not possibly have agreed to these terms, because I didn't know they existed.
himinlomax 7y ago
> If they did then there is no problem here. There is actually a major problem. Signing is not (anymore, at least, hopefully ...) (JUST) an authentication mechanism. It's a legal / contractual device that embodies the notion of consenting to something at some point. Importantly, when you sign anything, there's not just the text of the contract or agreement. It also features the date (and usually place) of the signing. How does that square with the insurance company using someone else's signature on their behalf? Ignoring all else, the mere presence of the date on the document presented on that tweet implies that it is a claim that soandso signed the document on 05-16-2019.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
The law is not all about intent. Lawyers carefully worded a contract with a lot of very specific details. The lawyers' employer clearly intends to enforce that specific contract, and they attached a signature in a way that in my opinion, does not prove he agreed to that contract. If there's intent to be discussed here, it's State Farm's intent to enforce a one-sided document as though it was a legally binding contract. If they pull that off, unfortunately the law starts caring an awful lot about the actual content. So fuck them and fuck anyone who defends them. This is exactly what is wrong with the US health system and we don't talk about it enough.

ldoughty 7y ago

The first few bullet points scream "you authorize SF to get your medical information and history". This is an application for long term disability, so they are trying to prove he's medically disabled by getting documentation from an authoritative source, which could only be accomplished by going to the doctors offices and insurers directly. Isn't this basically power of attorney? He signed a form that explicitly stated he authorized SF can get his medical information (along other things). What's the purpose of such a form except to NOT go back to him to sign 12 documents from different companies to release info one by one?

endogui 7y ago
Well, here he is claiming they didn't sign that document at all: the signature was copied from elsewhere.
- ldoughty 7y ago
  My interpretation was that this document was what he signed, since his tweet talked about his signature being on a form authorizing more specific things

aphyr 7y ago

<sigh> Again, if you read the thread, you would also know that I could not possibly have agreed to these terms, because I didn't know they existed.

himinlomax 7y ago

> If they did then there is no problem here. There is actually a major problem. Signing is not (anymore, at least, hopefully ...) (JUST) an authentication mechanism. It's a legal / contractual device that embodies the notion of consenting to something at some point. Importantly, when you sign anything, there's not just the text of the contract or agreement. It also features the date (and usually place) of the signing. How does that square with the insurance company using someone else's signature on their behalf? Ignoring all else, the mere presence of the date on the document presented on that tweet implies that it is a claim that soandso signed the document on 05-16-2019.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

The law is not all about intent. Lawyers carefully worded a contract with a lot of very specific details. The lawyers' employer clearly intends to enforce that specific contract, and they attached a signature in a way that in my opinion, does not prove he agreed to that contract. If there's intent to be discussed here, it's State Farm's intent to enforce a one-sided document as though it was a legally binding contract. If they pull that off, unfortunately the law starts caring an awful lot about the actual content. So fuck them and fuck anyone who defends them. This is exactly what is wrong with the US health system and we don't talk about it enough.