ETHICAL REDACTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS – A PLAINTIFF’S VIEW

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) Megan Marquardt November 22, 2010
Advertisements

U.S. LEGAL SYSTEMS – Federal Court Systems – State Court Systems.
County Election Protests, and Candidate Challenges Hearings and Their Appeal Don Wright SBE Statewide Training March 31, 2010.
A WHOLE NEW WORLD OF SETTLING CASES: PART II Donald Patrick Eckler December 23, 2013.
By Greg Flannery. Plaintiff- David R. Lawson Charged with reviewing documents turned over by defendants. Burke and Hull were supervising the review process.
Presented by Jennifer Coughlin Eugene, Oregon April 10, 2013.
Responding to Subpoenas Springfield Metropolitan Bar Association Doug Healy March 25, 2013.
“NOT NOW, NOT HERE: SUPREME COURT RULE 103(b) & FORUM NON CONVENIENS MOTIONS” Judge Lynn M. Egan Judge Daniel T. Gillespie September 26, 2014.
The Property Management Webinar Series Presents Evictions Made Easy (with) The New Rules Instructed by Judge Al Cercone, Justice of the Peace (JP3-1)
Forum Selection Clauses in Texas David Coale and Casey Kaplan Wednesday, November 19, 2008.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Litigation and Procedure Discovery: Overview and Interrogatories Litigation and Procedure.
L.A. 310 – DISCOVERY PART II. Depositions C.C.P section 2025 Defined: Oral testimony taken (usually prior to trial) which is: –Under oath –Before a certified.
Discovery from Nonparties John Smith 26 th Annual Advanced Evidence & Discovery Course 2013 March 21, 2013.
Motion to Compel A party is entitled to secure discovery from another party without court intervention.
1 CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT Beverly T. Beal North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges June, 2006.
David E. Silverman Brevard County Judge Pretrial Conferences Small Claims davidsilverman.com.
Civil Rules Update Denton County Bench-Bar Conference April 25-26, 2013 Justice Phil Johnson Texas Supreme Court 1.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION OBTAINING AND USING TANGIBLE EVIDENCE.
YOU BETTER PAY UP: Illinois’ Prompt Pay Statute Donald Patrick Eckler August 6, 2015 Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago,
What is the problem? Jampole v. Touchy, 673 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1984) “The ultimate purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so that disputes may be.
MODES OF DISCOVERY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Legal Forms Group 3 Summary.
Privacy and the Civil Commitment Process Allyson K. Tysinger Assistant Attorney General June 4-5, 2008.
Rule 45 – Or Why You Shouldn’t Panic When A Subpoena Comes In S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Esq. Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Charlotte – City Attorney’s.
Production of Documents/Inspection of “things” February 16, 2011 Advanced Civil Litigation.
© Mark E. Damon - All Rights Reserved $1 Million $500,000 $250,000 $125,000 $64,000 $32,000 $16,000 $8,000 $4,000.
© 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
L ITIGATION UNDER THE P UBLIC I NFORMATION A CT Kimberly Fuchs, Chief, PIA Litigation Section Rosalind Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, PIA Litigation.
© 2007 Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA All rights reserved. What is a Civil Case?
Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d. Cir. 2002).
1 Ethical Lawyering Spring 2006 Class 8. 2 Rest. 68 Except as otherwise provided in this Restatement, the attorney-client privilege may be invoked as.
Wed., Sept. 10. service service when defendant is an individual.
Juvenile Legislative Update 2013 Confidentiality of Records and Interagency Sharing of Educational Records.
HIPAA Training Workshop #3 Individual Rights Kaye L. Rankin Rankin Healthcare Consultants, Inc.
2013 Copyright John Steinsiekcopyright 2009 John Steinsiek11 Citations 1 Civil Process Service Of.
Forms of Pretrial Discovery in the Auto Property Damage Case Mark Demian and Jeffrey Dubin Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLP.
GETTING STARTED: Notices of appeal & the initial appellate documents.
Help! I’ve been called to give evidence in Court…  The doctor’s survivor guide for preparing for and attending court Sofia Papachristos, Special Counsel,
Subpoenas and Expunctions
Chapter Twelve Civil Procedure Before Trial
Post-Conviction Relief
Health Information Management Technology: An Applied Approach
PRE-SUIT CONSIDERATIONS
Wyoming Statutes §§ through
Tues., Sept. 9.
Wed., Sept. 7.
Collaboration: What are the opportunities? The Judiciary
TEXAS DISCOVERY UPDATE
Discovery in Tax Court Presented by THE PATRIOT NETWORK Founded by
Tennessee Faith &Justice Alliance Volunteer Attorney Training
THE LOOK BEFORE THE LEAP
Texas Secretary of State Elections Division
Limited Scope Representation
Tues., Sept. 10.
A REVIEW OF DISCOVERY OBJECTION PRACTICE IN TEXAS
CHALLENGES TO VOTER REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS AND REGISTERED VOTERS
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE
2018 Child Support Commission Bill Amendments to the APA Statute HB
Mon., Sept. 9.
TIPS FOR IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF YOUR DEPOSITIONS
Habeas Corpus Filing Procedures
Civil Pre-Trial Procedures
Civil Pretrial Practice
The Expert in Medical Malpractice Cases
Civil Pretrial Practice
Civil Pretrial Practice
Civil Pretrial Practice
Sadi R. Antonmattei-Goitia Sullo & Sullo, LLP February 16, 2019
Nebraska Supreme Court rules on interpreters Additions & Amendments
Proposed Commission Rules Changes WCLA 10/20/16
EVICTIONS.
Presentation transcript:

ETHICAL REDACTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS – A PLAINTIFF’S VIEW PAUL N. GOLD www.cuttingedgejustice.com

With thanks and apologies to Judy Kostura.

Duty to protect Plaintiff’s irrelevant and confidential healthcare information: HIPAA; Nw. Mem’l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923, 925, 925-926 (7th Cir. 2004); Code of Professional Responsibility

In re Soto, 270 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2008) Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105 (Tex. 1985) Mutter v. Wood, 744 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.1988); In re Gillham, Not Reported In S.W.3d, 2014 WL 5474788 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014) R.K. v. Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding). In Re: Union Pacific Railroad Company and Wanda Heckel, 459 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. App. – El Paso, 2015, no pet.) In re Drews, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2012 WL 4854716 (Tex.App.- Texarkana). In re Whipple, 373 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2012, no pet.) In re Jarvis, 431 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding ) In re Nance, 143 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. App. – Austin 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Pennington, 2008 WL 2780660, at *4 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2008, orig. proc.) In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2016 WL 6583654 (N.D. Tex. –Dall. Div. (2016)

Rule 176.6(e) (e) Protective orders. A person commanded to appear at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated documents and things, and any other person affected by the subpoena, may move for a protective order under Rule 192.6(b), before the time specified for compliance, either in the court in which the action is pending or in a district court in the county where the subpoena was served. The person must serve the motion on all parties in accordance with Rule 21a. A person need not comply with the part of a subpoena from which protection is sought under this paragraph unless ordered to do so by the court. The party requesting the subpoena may seek such an order at any time after the motion for protection is filed.

GOLD PROTECTIVE ORDER AGREEMENT 1. No waiver of privilege unless expressed in this agreement; 2. Broad authorization [approved form attached] will be signed and provided to Defendants upon execution of this agreement; 3. Plaintiff will have exclusive first review of all documents obtained by records service pursuant this agreement; 4. Record service agrees to comply with agreement, and to notify all parties when records obtained and delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. 5. Plaintiff’s attorney will have 15 days from delivery of medical records to Plaintiff’s attorney to assert objections and privileges. At end of 15 day period all records to which objection has not been made or privilege asserted automatically will be released to opposing counsel; 6. With respect to all documents to which Plaintiff asserts privilege, Plaintiff will provide a privilege log no later than 15 days from the date of delivery of documents by records service to Plaintiff’s attorney; 7. Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3 shall be activated upon service of the privilege log and no later than 15 days from the date of delivery of documents by records service to Plaintiff’s attorney; 8. Parties agree that all healthcare information pertaining to Plaintiff is for the purposes of this litigation only and will not be dispersed or disseminated outside this litigation. 9. Opposing counsel at the conclusion of the litigation shall confirm within twenty (20) days of the execution of a release or dismissal of all claims that all healthcare information obtained pursuant this agreement has been returned to Plaintiff’s attorney or that it has been destroyed. 10. This agreement pertains only to discovery of healthcare information pertaining to Plaintiff and not to admissibility of healthcare information at trial, as to which Plaintiff reserves all claims of privilege and objections.