cbs650

February 24th, 2016 at 11:47 PM ^

Not true. HIPAA applies to anyone or organization that is or comes into possession of an individual's personal health information. I am not a health care provider yet I can't release personal heath information of any of my clients unless they sign a release of information.

bluelaw2013

February 25th, 2016 at 8:06 AM ^

I think what cbs650 and Lawyer12 are trying to say is that HIPAA, while facially limited to only cover the conduct of certain entities, can be used in ways that extend liability beyond such entities, even potentially to a news reporter. For instance, under federal criminal laws, one who “commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission” or “willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States” is "punishable as a principal." 18 U.S.C. § 2. Similarly, “if two or more persons conspire . . . to commit any offense against the United States . . . and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,” then they can be liable as a conspirator. 18 U.S.C. § 371. Additionally, the "knowing" required to be liable for HIPAA violations does not mean "knowingly breaks the law," but rather means "knowingly disclosed or acquired the information." As such, depending on the specific circumstances of how the protected health information was disclosed and acquired, a news reporter could theoretically be criminally liable, pursuant to HIPAA, as a co-conspirator or for otherwise aiding and abetting a covered entity in the disclosure of such information, even though the reporter is not a covered entity. Moving from there, a criminal violation could potentially be used as a hook for civil claims, depending on damages and a host of other factors. For example, liability could come through the "unlawful" prong of certain state-level unfair/unlawful competition statues, or potentially under common-law torts in the vein of negligence (with HIPAA setting standards of care) or privacy (e.g., public dissemination of private facts) or mixed civil conspiracy counts. Or something. I think.

Real Tackles Wear 77

February 24th, 2016 at 10:42 PM ^

The "distribution" was done by whomever obtained the records, and leaked them to Schefter. As a journalist, it is his job to report on information he has. Unless he was an active participant in the illegal obtaining of info, he did nothing illegal, or even against journalistic ethics.

bacon

February 24th, 2016 at 10:39 PM ^

Tweet in question.  I would assume the issue is the obtaining, because he's not supposed to have the access to tweet it.  I'd guess ESPN settles to keep this from becoming more of a story. However, the fact is that the report was true, and the leaking only sped up the eventual story from breaking. There's no way JPP was going to keep the secret that he'd lost fingers.

CoverZero

February 24th, 2016 at 11:44 PM ^

Schefter may be a "Michigan guy" but personally I can not stand his whiney, self-rightous style of reporting "News" of the NFL.  He overstepped both traditional boundaries of journalism as well as common sense with this incident and JPP deserves his day in court.

YakAttack

February 25th, 2016 at 2:27 AM ^

was exactly what I expected. Good job you guys. I would bet it was a lower level medical professional, and not a doctor. So many people have access to these records now that they are electronic. There is a computer in my pharmacy that will not allow us to run our pharmacy software without MiChart being open, even though there is no need/use for it on said computer.

Doctor What

February 25th, 2016 at 8:06 AM ^

The media didn't enter into a HIPPA agreement with him His lawsuit needs to focus on those care givers responsible for ensuring the privacy of his medical records. I don't care for ESPN, at all, but this is misguided angst.