I-394 shut down in Minnetonka after shots reported

[Heffay]

What in your above source authorizes them to release the information to the media or local gun forum though?

9th Amendment?

[goalie]

Is HIPPA an issue if you are dead?

Yes, it is. A big one.

Is HIPPA an issue if you're a cop, or a private citizen who just happens to know stuff? IOW, who is bound by HIPPA rules?

Everyone with access to health care information about people due to their jobs are bound by the federal law. It begs the following question: How can you "just know stuff" if nobody violated HIPPA?

Be specific.

[goalie]

To use your example, every time a celebrity dies the coroner reports the findings. Is that not a release of info buddy? Think Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger, etc. I don't see anyone screaming HIPAA there. I think the waters are murkier here than you think....Medical examiners, funeral directors, executors of the estate, family members, researchers, etc can get their hands on the info....

And autopsy records are public. Since the question as to the shooting might be intricately linked to her condition ( Had schizophrenia - was shot, just like had widowmaker blockage, had Infarction) this might legally see the light of day...

From one source:

You may disclose PHI to a coroner or medical examiner for the purpose of identifying a deceased person, determining a cause of death, or complying with other duties as authorized by law. No prior consents or authorizations are required. Note that psychotherapy notes may be released without authorization to a coroner or medical examiner.

If you suspect that a death resulted from criminal conduct, you can disclose PHI about the deceased individual to a law enforcement official to alert the authorities to the death.

Get the point?

I obviously get it better than you do. Cause of death EVENTUALLY will be public. Go leak someone's psychological health care information to a TV station the day of the shooting and tell me how it works out for you.

My job in a code is sometimes that if the recorder. What I do/write down will be scanned into the chart, and is usually physically attached to the autopsy report IF THERE EVEN IS AN AUTOPSY. I would still be fired for talking about it, especially to the media etc.., after such an incident.

Reporting to the police is not only allowed, but mandatory.

But hey, you must be the expert. Just like the dozen people who just got caught looking into Bill Clinton's chart without reason were. They all got fired......

Justa Say'n.

[Paul]

^

I think the cause of death will be a gunshot wound.

Case solved.

[crbutler]

Actually, HIPAA has little, if nothing to do with passing mental health data to the police.

Its about health insurance.

Now, there are other laws that do require that mental health be protected at a higher level than that of "ordinary data", and it does require a court order to give this to LE, but in this sort of case, I expect it can be a given that the judge will give this authorization as part of the coroner's inquest. (MN data privacy act, Vulnerable adult laws, etc.)

There are also all kinds of exceptions that the doc can give info to involved parties if a medical emergency or threat to life exists.

Giving out the data illegitimately tends to be a civil penalty. ($$$$) Employees with loose lips get canned and sued. Of course, if you are a journalist, you are protected unless its libelous or slanderous.

[crbutler]

Oh and by law, any time the death is not natural and expected, there is an autopsy (by law- so the coroner can give the cause of death, so they can state it was a homicide).

The cause of death and contributing factors on the cause of death form are public knowledge.

I don't think autopsy results are automatically public knowledge. They may be depending on the judge's rulings in a case of homicide, but if aunt Millie dies and you ask for an autopsy, its NOT public information.

[1911fan]

Is HIPPA an issue if you are dead?

Yes, it is. A big one.

Is HIPPA an issue if you're a cop, or a private citizen who just happens to know stuff? IOW, who is bound by HIPPA rules?

Nope. HIPAA only applies to People who are legally responsible for the data or information they obtain in the performance of their job.

For example, goalie can't speak about patients. The patients' brother in law, bartender, neighbor, carpool member can say what ever they want. With wealthy or famous people who do the media try to reach first? Their staff or help or domestic's or what ever you want to call them.

In this case, Edina PD has no restrictions on saying she came in nuttier than a candybar. For all we know, all of her friends called WCCO and said what a loonie bird she was. Until or unless her doctor, nurse or therapist has been talking to the media, it's hard to invoke HIPAA. From the .gov website.

Health plans
Health care clearinghouses
Health care providers who conduct certain financial and administrative transactions electronically. These electronic transactions are those for which standards have been adopted by the Secretary under HIPAA, such as electronic billing and fund transfers.


These entities (collectively called “covered entities”) are bound by the privacy standards even if they contract with others (called “business associates”) to perform some of their essential functions. The law does not give the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to regulate other types of private businesses or public agencies through this regulation. For example, HHS does not have the authority to regulate employers, life insurance companies, or public agencies that deliver social security or welfare benefits. See our business associate section and the frequently asked questions about business associates for a more detailed discussion of the covered entities’ responsibilities when they engage others to perform essential functions or services for them.

And

If a state agency is not a “covered entity”, as that term is defined at 45 CFR 160.103, it is not required to comply with the HIPAA Privacy Rule and, thus, any disclosure of information by the state agency pursuant to its state public records law would not be subject to the Privacy Rule.

If a state agency is a covered entity, however, the Privacy Rule applies to its disclosures of protected health information. The Privacy Rule permits a covered entity to use and disclose protected health information as required by other law, including state law. See 45 CFR 164.512(a). Thus, where a state public records law mandates that a covered entity disclose protected health information, the covered entity is permitted by the Privacy Rule to make the disclosure, provided the disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of the public records law.

However, where a state public records law only permits, and does not mandate, the disclosure of protected health information, or where exceptions or other qualifications apply to exempt the protected health information from the state law’s disclosure requirement, such disclosures are not “required by law” and thus, would not fall within § 164.512(a) of the Privacy Rule. For example, if a state public records law includes an exemption that affords a state agency discretion not to disclose medical or other information where such disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the disclosure of such records is not required by the public records law, and therefore is not permissible under § 164.512(a). In such cases, a covered entity only would be able to make the disclosure if permitted by another provision of the Privacy Rule.

As an example of how the Privacy Rule would apply in the case where an exemption exists in a freedom of information law, see the December 2000 Privacy Rule preamble discussion regarding the relationship of the Privacy Rule with the federal Freedom of Information Act (64 FR 82482).

Date Created: 08/24/2004
Last Updated: 08/08/2005

[mrp]

Is HIPPA an issue if you're a cop, or a private citizen who just happens to know stuff? IOW, who is bound by HIPPA rules?

Everyone with access to health care information about people due to their jobs are bound by the federal law. It begs the following question: How can you "just know stuff" if nobody violated HIPPA?

Be specific.

"The source, who did not release the woman's identity, said people who knew her reported she had been acting erratically recently. She had been released last year from a mental treatment facility in California before coming to the Twin Cities, where she had family, according to the source."

The source could be anyone who knows her. (I know a lot of physical/mental health details about a fair number of people, and I am not bound by HIPPA.) Obtaining information about a suspect from non-HIPPA covered people doesn't violate HIPPA, and the release of that information by the police doesn't violate HIPPA either.

HIPPA does not apply to "everyone with access to health care information due to their jobs" according to:
https://www.cms.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/06_AreYouaCoveredEntity.asp
https://www.cms.gov/HIPAAGenInfo/downloads/CoveredEntityCharts.pdf

Courts have ruled that HIPPA does not apply to law enforcement:

¶12 In fact, during the promulgation of HIPAA, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) expressly stated: "We shape the rule's provisions with respect to law enforcement according to the limited scope of our regulatory authority under HIPAA, which applies only to the covered entities and not to law enforcement officials." 65 Fed. Reg. 82462, 82679 (Dec. 28, 2000) (emphasis added). DHHS further clarified:

This rule regulates the ability of health care clearinghouses, health plans, and covered health care providers to use and disclose health information. It does not regulate the behavior of law enforcement officials or the courts, nor does it prevent states from regulating law enforcement officials. All regulations have some effects on entities that are not directly regulated. We have considered those effects in this instance and have determined that the provisions of the rule are necessary to protect the privacy of individuals.

That court also ruled that HIPPA only applies to records, and not simply information. So not only does HIPPA not apply to law enforcement, but even if it did, (in the case cited) an officer who was in an operating room and witnessed cocaine being removed from a suspect could disclose what he observed (and obtained) during surgery since it did not concern the release of "medical records".

[Snowgun]

I obviously get it better than you do. Cause of death EVENTUALLY will be public. Go leak someone's psychological health care information to a TV station the day of the shooting and tell me how it works out for you.

The cause of death and contributing factors on the cause of death form are public knowledge.
.

While Goalie is trying to pound into our heads that he can't help us get info for the forum here ( you're off the hook buddy, we'll take it from here), I think the question being asked is will the info become public regarding what (if any) possible health/mental related aspect made her act the way she did. That, and if that mechanism can happen without requiring a leak (or goalie), what is taking so long?

I believe that it will surface through publicly available documents the press picks up that have been given to the LE/ME/Judge during the investigation.

[goalie]

While Goalie is trying to pound into our heads that he can't help us get info for the forum here ( you're off the hook buddy, we'll take it from here), I think the question being asked is will the info become public regarding what (if any) possible health/mental related aspect made her act the way she did. That, and if that mechanism can happen without requiring a leak (or goalie), what is taking so long?

I believe that it will surface through publicly available documents the press picks up that have been given to the LE/ME/Judge during the investigation.

I have zero info on this specific case.

[Paul]

Really at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference whether or not she was crazy. The only question is was it a justifiable shoot? The officer didn't have the woman's medical background available at the time of the incident, he had to act based on the threat she posed at that moment, so it's all pretty irrelevant.

[mnglocker]

Really at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference whether or not she was crazy. The only question is was it a justifiable shoot? The officer didn't have the woman's medical background available at the time of the incident, he had to act based on the threat she posed at that moment, so it's all pretty irrelevant.

In my mind, California plates are all he needed.

[sawgrass]

Really at the end of the day it doesn't make a difference whether or not she was crazy. The only question is was it a justifiable shoot? The officer didn't have the woman's medical background available at the time of the incident, he had to act based on the threat she posed at that moment, so it's all pretty irrelevant.

In my mind, California plates are all he needed.

That is so lame, and somewhat offensive. My BIL is a retired LA cop and a very good man. Wrench's sister lives in California.
Would you shoot her when she comes to visit?

[1911fan]

Sawgrass. It's Glocker and his attempt at humor/hyperbole/ satire. Relax.

[sawgrass]

Sawgrass. It's Glocker and his attempt at humor/hyperbole/ satire. Relax.

At least it's a little funny to see "1911" defending "Glock".