If I am not wrong, disclosure of patient info/records is forbidden under HIPAA. Walgreens may get into real trouble for this incident.
1 posted on
03/08/2006 2:30:37 PM PST by
indcons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: indcons
..but, at the same time, her comments and actions in this situation seems to confirm the comments..
2 posted on
03/08/2006 2:32:42 PM PST by
mnehring
(http://abaraxas.blogspot.com/.)
To: indcons
3 posted on
03/08/2006 2:33:28 PM PST by
SengirV
To: indcons
Ooopsie!
I'm sure you are correct. I think Walgreen's is in trouble on this one.
5 posted on
03/08/2006 2:34:49 PM PST by
Theresawithanh
(Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.)
To: indcons
She sounds like 80% of the women in Palm Beach County. Probably one of my mom's (who is a mental health counselor) clients.
6 posted on
03/08/2006 2:35:04 PM PST by
Clemenza
(Dick Cheney is a big middle finger to the "other directed" Sheeple. My kind of guy!)
To: indcons
An apology would be sufficient. Why should she get any money for this? Sheesh.
susie
7 posted on
03/08/2006 2:35:14 PM PST by
brytlea
(I'm not a conspiracy theorist....really.)
To: indcons
If I am not wrong, disclosure of patient info/records is forbidden under HIPAA. Walgreens may get into real trouble for this incident. Hollering her name and medications all over the store is bad enough, but it just got a whole lot more public with the lawsuit and this article in the paper.
8 posted on
03/08/2006 2:35:53 PM PST by
Riley
("What color is the boathouse at Hereford?")
To: indcons
I'm normally on the side agaist lawsuits, but this one is so deserved. This is horrible. If it was an inside joke that somehow got printed, they need to tighten up the ship. Of course, we all say and do things behind a person's back, but this is really humiliating to have it right in front of her in print. Wallgreen's is in deep doo-doo on this one.
9 posted on
03/08/2006 2:36:17 PM PST by
GOP_Proud
(Jack Bauer wears Dick Cheney jammies.)
To: indcons
10 posted on
03/08/2006 2:36:33 PM PST by
stm
(It's possible to fix most things, but you can't fix stupid)
To: indcons
Walgreens can take the position that they were trying to protect their employees from being attacked or worse by a prescipted-medicated "customer" [read:moonbat].
11 posted on
03/08/2006 2:36:36 PM PST by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: indcons
This woman is like the muslims that prove whatever negative thing is said about them.
12 posted on
03/08/2006 2:36:45 PM PST by
CzarNicky
(The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
To: indcons
As my man Bocephus sang in Mr Lincoln:
"Cause everybody sues over any little thing these days"
To: indcons
oh boy, are they in trouble ... not only Walgreens but the employees themselves, if they can be identified. I believe the fine for disclosing information is $10,000 per incident.
To: indcons
"CrAzY!!" LOL! This just struck me as funny.
16 posted on
03/08/2006 2:37:56 PM PST by
SIDENET
(If those lame Imams can issue fatwas, then so can I)
To: indcons
These were actually comments generated by the pharmacy in some capcity so they didn't break any hippa rules. She and the pharmacy workers are the only ones who saw it.
17 posted on
03/08/2006 2:38:10 PM PST by
auntyfemenist
(Card carrying conservative, William F. Buckley fan.)
To: indcons
Whoever entered that information into her records should be severely disciplined, or fired. Walgreens should apologize to the lady, and that's that.
18 posted on
03/08/2006 2:38:18 PM PST by
andyk
(Go Matt Kenseth!)
To: indcons
How can disclosure of patient info to the patient be a violation under HIPAA?
Now if they gave her info to ME or you.
But as the patient, she is entitled to those records.
It boils down to this: She is offended that someone else thinks this of her and now she wants them to pay.
(It is unprofessional, but not a HIPAA violation)
19 posted on
03/08/2006 2:38:23 PM PST by
dman4384
To: indcons
Maybe she needs something for paranoia, too.
"I'm thinking they're thinking here comes psycho, that they're laughing at me as I come in the store'
20 posted on
03/08/2006 2:38:44 PM PST by
digger48
To: indcons
25 posted on
03/08/2006 2:41:38 PM PST by
SIDENET
(If those lame Imams can issue fatwas, then so can I)
To: indcons
It appears to me that she really is "CrAzY!!" and that "she's really a psycho!!!"
29 posted on
03/08/2006 2:43:35 PM PST by
Jaysun
(The plain truth is that I am not a fair man, and don't want to hear both sides.)
To: indcons
Walgreens may get into real trouble for this incident.And well they should. They should also thank their lucky stars that this didn't result in her attempting to commit a successful suicide.
31 posted on
03/08/2006 2:44:56 PM PST by
Hot Tabasco
(When in doubt, I ask myself: "What would Jack Bauer do?" My boss isn't going to like the answer...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
