posted
This is what happened to my friend. I have her permission to post it here. She was involuntarily committed, by a well meaning friend who called 911 because they thought she was suicidal at the time, although she wasn't. While she did have mental health issues and was under medical care for them, she was dragged off from her own apartment in handcuffs, after a police officer decided she had enough pills in her posession to kill herself. (They were neatly organized in a weekly and hourly dispenser at the time)
quote: For those who don't know about mental health law in Oklahoma, you can be held on the basis of one citizen, one police officer, and one doctor for 72 hours NOT including weekends.
Therefore, I was held in the mental institution all weekend. My involuntary 72 hour hold began at 6 AM on Monday. I spent all day Monday trying to prove that I was in fact 'sane'. I was released into the care of my personal psychiatrist at 8 AM on Tuesday, short of the 72 hour hold, thanks largely in part to my personal doctors.
The ramifications of this other than missing Senior Design Classes are widespread. When [Aerospace Govt Contractor] got wind of this, they tried to fire me. (She had already been hired but had not yet actually graduated from school.) I spent 10 days on medical leave prior to be hired while all of my psychiatric records were evaluated.
Under Oklahoma state law, I cannot see those records-my employer can.
I am required by [Aerospace Govt Contractor] to obtain and maintain a Secret security clearance. The psychiatric hospitalization has delayed my investigation for 2.5 years. Next up, is a psychiatric evaluation by a DoD psychiatrist. If my clearance is denied, I will lose my job and be unable to work in military aviation.
She has also told me she has seen parts of the records but parts are sealed from her. Basically on the rationale that if she saw them it would cause her to wig out. She still doesn't know what drugs they actually gave her in the mental institution, nor will they tell her, though she knows she slept 12-18 hours a day. I don't know if the mental institution allowed her to take her own medication or not.
At this point she's seriously thinking of hiring a lawyer. She's truly more worried about the security clearance than she is knowing or not knowing what are in those records but the two go hand in hand.
I asked Mack and we started combing through the text of the HIPAA act, but it is in legaleese.
She's thinking of hiring a lawyer herself, but it would be nice if she already knew the section of the Federal Law that overrides the State law, if it indeed does. She has been unable to find it herself.
posted
Write your congressperson for help. They make a living with this kind of thing, and they have a lot more clout than most lawyers.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Providers and health insurers who are required to follow this law must comply with your right to Ask to see and get a copy of your health records Have corrections added to your health information Receive a notice that tells you how your health information may be used and shared Decide if you want to give your permission before your health information can be used or shared for certain purposes, such as for marketing Get a report on when and why your health information was shared for certain purposes If you believe your rights are being denied or your health information isn't being protected, you can File a complaint with your provider or health insurer File a complaint with the U.S. Government You should get to know these important rights, which help you protect your health information. You can ask your provider or health insurer questions about your rights. You also can learn more about your rights, including how to file a complaint, from the website at www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/ or by calling 1-866-627-7748; the phone call is free.
posted
From what I read, she could have a copy sent to her current doctor, and then he could review it and decide if letting her know would pose a risk to herself....
Or shoe could file a complaint, and follow the procedures..
Or sue them for the release of her records.
This is one of the only times a doctor may be justified in withholding that sort of information, and that is the first time I have heard of that.
Most courts are sypethetic to that patients rigths to know, at least around here...
Hope that helps...talk to a lawyer, as most of them will know right away what laws apply. That is why they went to law school!
Also, a lot of them give a free consultation, so at the worst she would find out what laws apply from the get go, even if she didn't go forward with a lawsuit.
quote: I The right to access, upon request, to such person’s mental health care records, except such person may be refused access to— (i) information in such records provided by a third party under assurance that such information shall remain confidential; and (ii) specific material in such records if the health professional responsible for the mental health services concerned has made a determination in writing that such access would be detrimental to such person’s health, except that such material may be made available to a similarly licensed health professional selected by such person and such health professional may, in the exercise of professional judgment, provide such person with access to any or all parts of such material or otherwise disclose the information contained in such material to such person.
Basically, if they determine that seeing these records would make her "wig out" then they can withhold them, but they MUST provide those records to a doctor of HER specification. If that happens to be her personal psychiatrist, then that psychiatrist then has full discretion as to whether to disclose the full records to your friend. As far as the security clearance, I honestly do reccomend a call to your Representative in the house. Most Representatives have a constituent service section on their websites.
posted
Hmm I bet (i) is the section which the admitting doc at the mental health facility is covered under. and there don't seem to be exceptions to that.
posted
Since the admitting doc is the one providing treatment, I don't think that would apply. However, if the well meaning friend gave a statement that was included in the medical record, that probably won't be made available under part (i). Of course, I am fairly new to all of this.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
9i0 only applies (I think) to things provided by a third party, and then only if the person/facility recieving it from them promised to keep it confidential...
The Doc treating her that weekend would be SUPPLYING info, not recieveing it, so that part of it should not apply.
I am almost positive that it wouldn't stand up in court.
Keep in mind that while i have some expeerience in the medical field, all that was before HIPPA...and I am not a lawyer.
But from what I read, adn from discussions I have had with my wife, who as a Pharmisy Tech deals with HIPPA on a daily basis....She should be able to work around this.
At the least she should be able to find out what drugs were administered....
posted
Absolutely. Or at the very least, a doctor she trusts will be able to. And if her doctors are as pissed off abou this whole thing as she is, I'm sure that will mean she will too. There is absolutely no way that a care provider could be interpreted as a "third party." We need to get Dag in here. I've only been a law student for about 6 weeks. From reading through that Bill of Rights, it looks like she has some other actionable claims as well.
Don't you just love the mental health system in this country?
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I don't think the laws are that off base in this instance. If a Doc thinks that she is in danger of harming herself if she doesn't get that job, then he may be right to temporalily withold this info....all we have to go on here is one side of the story.
Most MD's are truly concerned with the wellbeing of their patients, and wouldn't withold this type of info....but when dealing with the mental aspect of thises things, it is even harder.
We aren't Doctors, nor are we personally involved in this process, so we are too removed from the reality of it to decide.
These cases are why there are appeals processes, and leagal recourse. If she is OK, then her Doctor won't have a problem relaeasing the info to her.
Not that it doesn't suck....but they are just trying to do the right thing by her, probably.
posted
Bricker & Eckler hosts a HIPAA forum and some of their lawyers answer general HIPAA questions on a fairly regular basis.
Gretchen McBeath, one of the frequent posters there, sounds like a pretty qualified individual:
quote:Gretchen McBeath is a partner with Bricker & Eckler LLP in the health care department and practices regulatory compliance. She writes and maintains the web-based Ohio Hospital Association/Ohio State Medical Association/Bricker & Eckler LLP HIPAA Privacy Joint Information Center, developed and updates the HIPAA Self-Assessment and Compliance Guides for health care facilities, health plans, and clinical practices, and assists health care organizations with compliance with the HIPAA privacy regulations. She also represents health care organizations in regulatory matters involving licensure and certification.
Of course, Bricker lawyers cannot give legal advice online. But if you ask a general question they can offer some general advice.
Make sure you do not provide any sensitive information. Any communication made between you and a lawyer in a public forum is probably not protected by attorney client privilege, even if you end up hiring that lawyer.
I hope this helps. Your friend is lucky to have you in her corner.
[ October 14, 2004, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I tried to eliminate all sensitive info from the post above, but the fact it happened in Oklahoma is relevant.
I definitely think she needs to get a lawyer of her own. Don't know what field or specialty you'd want them in though. It's not straight personal injury law.
posted
The best bet is to find a mental health patient advocacy group with good contacts in the legal community. If this were a cancer situation, I might be able to point you in the right direction.
My experience with HIPPA is all in keeping the information secret, not in forcing release.
posted
She'd have a good chance in a law suit against the referrer, as long as she could prove the person had no basis for knowing she was suicidal at the time. If she can show motive for malice, so much the better.
And there are likely criminal charges that could be filed as well.
posted
And I'd think that firing someone for a psychiatric hospitalization would be not providing reasonable accomodation.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That truly stinks, Banna. I hope she can decide before proceeding whether it is more important to keep the "trusted" friend or her career/ clearance opportunity. Because she is going to have to maintain that her friend essentially lied, and possibly have to put her friend's sanity on the defense. That's the thing- what measure is there from keeping crazy people from having someone committed? You need one citizen who calls a cop. If you resist the cop, the cop and the doctor are pretty likely to agree that you are crazy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love being the plaintiff's lawyer in front of the jury. Getting it past summary judgment would be much harder I think. But if you get the jury thinking "this could happen to me" you're halfway to winning.
posted
Umm, this was 2.5 years ago now, and since the incident I don't think they actually could be considered friends.
quote: possibly have to put her friend's sanity on the defense.
So ironic, the person who called has as at least as troubled of a mental health history as the person who got involuntarily committed. I don't know how relevant or not that is to the security clearance investigation. It may not be able to be brought up anyway since then you are involving another person's mental health history without their permission.
A was confiding in B about the rough time she was having, becuase she thought B could be trusted having "been there" herself with depression and the like. B reacted/overreacted based on an IM conversation and didn't personally go to see the person, but called the police instead. B thought she was doing the right thing at the time. If A had actually been a danger to herself, it is true, the police get there faster.
However the consequences have been so far reaching in A's life, that 2.5 years later she's still dealing with it. If B had realized the long-term damage it would cause, I'm sure it wouldn't have happened the way it did. But hindsight is always 20-20 too.
quote:I would think summary judgement would be fairly easy to avoid, since there would have been a clear disagreement as to the facts of the case.
The hard part would be finding the right cause of action, even with the facts interpreted as favorably as possible for the plaintiffs. With defamation, there's be an issue of whether the statement was "published." Fraud requires reliance on the false statements by the plaintiff. Battery and false imprisonment may or may not cover actions induced by fraud. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress seems most likely, but that's always a crap shoot.
quote: If B had realized the long-term damage it would cause, I'm sure it wouldn't have happened the way it did.
Well, maybe. Consider the options, though – if you call you know it will have long-term repercussions in the person’s life. If you don’t call and the person is suicidal it won’t have long-term repercussions because she’ll be dead
It’s not a fun choice to have to make.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I *know* it isn't/wasn't a fun choice. I've nearly had to make that decision once recently myself.
In hindsight there were a couple of intermediate steps that could have been taken that weren't IMO. I was not in on the decision making, but it was known that she would be working for a defense contractor and needing a security clearance, and that thought would have crossed my mind, because I've seen the background checks my father has to go through for his clearances. But it doesn't naturally occur to everyone either.
Even the person who was committed agrees that the choice was an option. And if things were that bad, she would prefer to have been involuntarily admitted and still be alive. But, the assessment of the direness of the situation was incorrect, the police officer violated all kinds of protocol when questioning and bringing her in, and there is possibly incorrect information in her medical record that she doesn't have access to to even find out what it says to file a complaint about the mental institution. (Though I believe she already has filed several complaints about her treatment while confined there.)
To clarify, she curently *is* actually employed by the defense contractor, but is not allowed to have promotions or be assigned projects that require security clearances unless she has that clearance. Because she isn't meeting the condition of employment which was passing the security clearance yet, they could terminate her at any time if they wanted to. If there were cutbacks she would be probably the first to go.
posted
She really has a case, I think...if not for damages, then at least for access to the records and to clear up any false claims.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Oh, stuff like this makes me mad.
