In this case the subject is in NY state which has an Anti-SLAPP law and she should apply it and HIPAA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
I would suggest using a pseudonym and VPN for any review written on a potentially litigious business unless you have the funds to litigate. Problem is Yelp is much more likely to mark the review as spam.
We are hearing one side of the story here. HIPAA violations have teeth -- potentially 10 years imprisonment for intentional leaks for personal gain -- so a vindictive public action is highly unlikely, and certainly some lawyers would take the case on spec. Especially if personal information like driver's license info and home address were leaked.
What likely happened is this quip triggered the mess:
> “I suspect that this doctor gives unnecessary procedure [sic] to a lot of people and then charges the insurance sky high prices and no one knows the difference.
Levine is accusing Song of health care and medical insurance fraud. While there's some ambiguity regarding "unnecessary procedures", insurance fraud is a crime and arguably Levine is accusing Song of criminal behavior
>The most damning thing in there was that the Doctor tested for HHV-6 (something 100% of humans have) and then charged for it and claimed it was HHV-2 (genital herpes). Theres apparently a lab technician available to testify that the Doctor commonly tests for HHV-6. Guy seems sleazy.
>HHV-6 primary infections account for up to 20% of infant emergency room visits for fever in the United States
The test can be used to assess viral load, which may indicate other issues, I'm told. (I'm not a doctor, though.) If you have a very high viral load of HHV6, it may indicate something else is going on. However, that doesn't mean it was necessary in this patient's case. But the test exists for legitimate reasons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_herpesvirus_6#Epidemiolo...
I was sued and I pro-se to defend myself. Although the plaintiffs know the lawsuit is frivolous but that doesn’t matter. He said if I don’t apologize and I win the case, he will just spend more money appeal the case and make my life miserable. I apologized and he dismissed the case.
It probably caused him some money, but it had caused me a lot of distress and time reading up the laws.
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...
The most damning thing in there was that the Doctor tested for HHV-6 (something 100% of humans have) and then charged for it and claimed it was HHV-2 (genital herpes). Theres apparently a lab technician available to testify that the Doctor commonly tests for HHV-6. Guy seems sleazy
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.
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?
>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.
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.
Reminds me of that famous poem "First they came for the ..."
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...
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.
This reveals a predicament for businesses that have to protect customer privacy. If a restaurant owner thinks a customer is lying, they can call the person out on all kinds of media and say they're a liar. Alamo Drafthouse made a set of videos to play before movies making fun of a customer complaint call, telling her to eff off.
If a doctor believe a patient is lying or doing a detriment to their business, they can't call them back out on social media. Their only remediation, if they think the statements are false, is a lawsuit to have the force of law take lies down.
I had a friend of mine who refused a request by a patient out of the country, while on-call one weekend. I'll leave out the details apart from it involved shipping a large quantity of a very expensive medication to another country - as the hospital did not have this medication available. He had already sent enough of this medication to cover for at least a week (at huge cost to the NHS, as the medication had to be couriered by plane) when a second request was received 2 days later. A huge internet hate-mob appeared on Facebook saying all sorts of things about this doctor by name, to which he had no ability to respond.
I'm for making healthcare more transparent, but I wonder if, as a doctor, we'd be pressurised into pleasing the patient more than treating the patients correctly, with the threat of negative yelp reviews, though that's obviously a risk with any sort of profession and review system.
Though I guess if a phone call had protected HIPAA information and you could tell who it was through their voice it might be a violation?
There are so many things wrong in how the doctor behaved it is mind-boggling and a big red flag. Fighting angry and stupid people in court is best avoided but one does not always have a choice.
It seems like there should be some special set of rules around medical reviews, in my opinion at least.
Even if the patient reveals PHI you should avoid confirming or acknowledging it as the "covered entity" under HIPAA. A confirmation of a diagnosis is different than a person discussing symptoms. I would argue that you probably should avoid even acknowledging that the person is a patient or has been seen in the office. The approach will reinforce to others how seriously you take privacy and you can taut your customer service policies, etc.
I wouldn't call this unfair since all providers are in the same situation.
(This isn't legal advice, obviously.)
Review wars are real in all retail businesses, its pretty sad.
-----
I cannot imagine a lawyer would condone the HIPAA violation, I wonder if there are exceptions when the patient has made that information public before you (patient said she had x, and you say "We did not diagnose x") or smth.
Definitely recommend checking out libel insurance. Shouldn't cost much to get and will help protect against companies trying to go after you.
And to be scrupulously neutral, 3 stars if that's an option.
Opinion is allowed, verifiable facts are allowed. False statements of facts are not.
> They posted my entire medical record, including notes about my mental health, my bills, my insurance info, my driver’s license, birth date and home address,” she said.
wow. That violates HIPAA law. The counter-sue is going to be huge.
Also, I had a related issue where a doctor threatened to sue based on my yelp review. I cut the review back to verifiable facts instead of opinion and asked if that compromise was ok, he said it wasn't and started claiming it was defamation. I cut off contact and that was that. I wondered if it was possible to be dragged into court by something like this, apparently I may have dodged a bullet. Scary stuff.