首页> 外文OA文献 >State ex rel. Proctor v. Messina and Ex Parte Communications Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule: The “Judicial Proceedings” Split
【2h】

State ex rel. Proctor v. Messina and Ex Parte Communications Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule: The “Judicial Proceedings” Split

机译:州立。根据HIPAA隐私规则对Proctor诉墨西拿和单方通信:“司法程序”拆分

摘要

In State ex rel. Proctor v. Messina, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not authorize court orders permitting defense counsel to enter into informal ex parte communications with a plaintiff’s treating, non-party health care provider, absent the plaintiff’s authorization. In overruling the trial court’s order allowing such ex parte communications, the 2010 decision comports with the majority of state courts that prohibit such informal discovery techniques. Notably, however, the Missouri court did not rest its holding on any state substantive rule expressly prohibiting ex parte communications, but on the court’s interpretation of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. The Proctor court is the only tribunal that has held that the HIPAA Privacy Rule, as opposed to state substantive law, does not authorize such communications, pitting itself against many sister state courts that have interpreted the HIPAA confidentiality regulations to the contrary.
机译:在州有关。密苏里州最高法院Proctor v。Messina案认为,HIPAA隐私权规则未授权法院命令允许辩护律师与原告的经过治疗的,非当事人的医疗服务提供者在未经原告授权的情况下进行非正式的单方通信。在否决原审法院允许此类单方面通信的命令的过程中,2010年的裁决与大多数禁止此类非正式发现技术的州法院相称。但是,值得注意的是,密苏里州法院并没有依据任何明文禁止单方通讯的州实质性规则,而是根据法院对《 HIPAA隐私权规则》的解释。 Proctor法院是唯一裁定《 HIPAA隐私规则》与州实体法相对立的法庭,并未批准此类通信,这使许多姐妹州法院对HIPAA保密规定的解释相反。

著录项

  • 作者

    Sheffner Daniel J.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2016
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号