Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Judge Decides on the Side of Hospital in Murdered Reporter Lawsuit

KATV reports a Little Rock Judge sided with St Vincent Medical Center in a lawsuit filed by Patti Cannady, the mother of KATV reporter Anne Pressly who was murdered in 2008. The lawsuit was filed after a doctor and two hospital employees pleaded guilty to charges of federal medical privacy violations. The story says Arkansas law that doesn't allow claims of privacy invasion to proceed once the affected person dies. Cannady released a statement saying the family's lawyers are prepared to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

32 Comments:

At 10:56 PM, October 18, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do folks always want to sue somebody for everything.The perpetrators in this case were punished, Justice has been served! Why keep the drama going and going....

 
At 3:15 AM, October 19, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the family wants to keep it going because they are in pain because of the violent death of someone they loved dearly. Yes, people were punished, a decision was reached, and closure should have been acheived. All of that is rational, but the family is responding emotionally. Their loved one died violently and professionals handled the situation in a very unprofessional and insensitive manner with little or no regard for the family and their loved one. The family is reacting emotionally. They hurt and they feel those who increased their pain with their insensitive actions should suffer. On a human level, it is easy to understand the family's actions and inability to let go even though finality appears to have been acheived. no one wins here. The entire situation is heartbreaking.

 
At 8:25 AM, October 19, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have always thought there was something very specific on those medical records that the family didn't want out there.

 
At 8:50 AM, October 19, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:25 Pure specualtion. Just because you feel something is on those medical records the family did not want released, does not mean there is. Speculation like that contiues to hurt the family and is pointless.

 
At 9:04 AM, October 19, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No matter what was or was not contained in those records, they should not have been accessed by anyone who was not directly involved in Anne's care at the hospital. I think this has opened lots of people's eyes about exactly what goes on in hospitals and doctors offices, where nosy people who have no business seeing your files can easily gain access. I'll bet it happens far more often than anyone likes to think.

 
At 7:18 PM, October 19, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The HIPPA Act is pretty specific as it is a federal law in which the act requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization.

In short: even if a person is deceased, the act requires their patient information be protected. Failing to do so is a violation of trust. Anyone involved in journalism should see that as a no-brainer. Any person or institution that fails to protect a patient's rights (living or dead) is violating this trust and should be sued for damages, suspended and/or dismissed. It's that simple.

 
At 11:18 PM, October 20, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

The HIPPA Act is pretty specific as it is a federal law in which the act requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization."

Sounds good, but name me one federal law that has not been broken. Just because there is a LAW against something does not fully prevent someone from breaking it. Safeguards? . . . :)

 
At 10:46 AM, October 21, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To: 11:18 PM, October 20, 2011

I don't see the point of your comment. Yes, laws do get broken.
The point I was hoping to make is that healthcare institutions AND their employees are entrusted with keeping patients (or customers if you will) personal information private.

Safeguards? Well...legal precedents provide "incentives" to individuals AND the institutions which employ / entrust those individuals to keep these rights sancrosanct. If an institution faces huge legal liabilities...that should suffice.
It's like my father told me that putting a lock on a door won't necessarily keep someone from kicking your door down...but it does set precedent in that by placing it on the door establishes your intent to keep people from coming & going at their discretion.
Laws establish boundaries... and keep honest people honest. Break those laws and suffer consequences. Plain & simple.

 
At 11:05 AM, October 21, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Honestly, I think it's time to put this story aside and let that poor girl rest in peace. I know it's easy for me to say because I am not a family member of hers, and I do believe there are still a lot of unanswered questions, but I think we know as much as we are ever going to know and it should be put aside.

 
At 7:23 AM, October 22, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have always thought there was something very specific on those medical records that the family didn't want out there."

...or so rationalized one of the scummy people who illegally accessed Anne's records.

 
At 10:54 AM, October 23, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ST. Vincent has a system that would let any employee anywhere access medical records.

To add more controls would be more work and take more money. The need a compelling reason to do that.

That's what lawsuits can accomplish

 
At 1:48 PM, October 23, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FWIW, Actually it wouldn't be that hard to develop a code that restricts patient info access. Those who access info could be tracked via access keys. RISC/PACS systems have software that enables limited access and with the push for more streamlined electronic records in healthcare, I can't imagine the IT/PACS Administrator-coordinator wouldn't have this in the mix or at least sooner than later.
The only variable is what happens if someone has access and then shares info with non-authorized folks...that's where supervisory oversight comes into play.

 
At 5:38 PM, October 23, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think anne's parents have got their panties in to too big of a wad. I'm pretty darn sure everything wasn't made public about this crime I swear her parents make Anne sound like a little ms goodie too shoes.

 
At 10:13 PM, October 23, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The point I was hoping to make is that healthcare institutions AND their employees are entrusted with keeping patients (or customers if you will) personal information private."

Well,the point I was trying to make to you is that if you think all employees are going to keep personal information private just because they are "entrusted" or there is a law saying you can't look into patient's records, you are living in a dream world. Do you get it now?

 
At 7:11 AM, October 24, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I think your wording was very harsh, 5:38, I do agree with you on one point: the full truth about this crime will never be known. I think things have been hushed up out of respect for what her parents have been through. That being the case, if I were them, I'd let bad enough alone and not file any more lawsuits. I know her friends and supporters are on here, and they take immediate offense to anything that anyone says, but there had to be something in those medical records in particular that was highly sensitive. A list of her injuries, etc., would not have generated this kind of outcry. But if you mention anything like that, someone is going to come on here and attack.

 
At 10:27 AM, October 24, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are people so stupid? Your correct there are things on there that are sensitive probably. Answer this, if your daughter was beat to death do you think it's the publics right to know the extent of her injuries or if she was sexually assaulted as well. I don't, losing a child is bad enough, but to not stand up for them when they can't is not being a parent. Obviously, most of you do not have kids. If my child was sexually assaulted then why do you think it's your right to know. Would you go around telling people? Of course not that's not your place or the hospital's.

For the people that think there has to be more to the story, you will never be satisfied cause you honestly want there to be more. You want to think she had to be doing something unmoral for this to happen. Well, I feel sorry for you case the truth is bad things happen to good people. I wish the creator of this blog would take down this post cause all it does is give the conspirators a platform to stand on.

 
At 4:20 PM, October 24, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The creator of this blog IS a conspirator, that's why he does it.

 
At 5:10 PM, October 24, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:13 PM, October 23, 2011
Well,the point I was trying to make to you is that if you think all employees are going to keep personal information private just because they are "entrusted" or there is a law saying you can't look into patient's records, you are living in a dream world. Do you get it now?

FWIW 10:13 PM: I do get it. Laws & rules are only obeyed by those who "get it". People will break rules & laws. Nothing is perfect and I don't live in a dreamworld. I happen to work in the medical field and I do know that most if not all the folks in my area take the HIPPA Act pretty seriously. In fact I've served on peer review boards and have recommended dismissal for lack of compliance. Nothing is failsafe, but in my experience I've been fortunate to work with colleagues who have a high degree of integrity and do their part to safeguard personal information. Most medical folks know & understand this, but you're right; sometimes there will be those who are more ethically-challenged than others.

 
At 6:59 PM, October 24, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love it. You call the creator of this blog a conspiracist. And yet I bet you manage to drag yourself away from your oh-so-interesting life to check in here several times per day! If you don't like the topics, you are under no obligation to return...

 
At 5:41 PM, October 25, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that!

 
At 9:23 PM, October 26, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice 6 59 we can never feel what her folks are going through i couild not imanigie the pain they must go through on a day-to day basis

 
At 3:32 PM, October 27, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What did 6:59's post have to do with Anne's parents?? If you're going to go after someone, make sure you're going after the right poster!

 
At 11:59 PM, October 27, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

medical records are confidential. no matter what I go to the doctor for, that's what I expect.

yes, I won't lie people want to know answers for things we will never get answers to, but her right to privacy had been violated and sadly its because she is in the spotlight and the attention the media gave it.

im sure people in the medical field snoop when they hear a current patient had a news story run about them

people need to be help accountable
and when it happens to a public figure, that gets the ball rolling

 
At 12:41 AM, October 29, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like a hospital needs to have a class on their "Patient Confidentiality" policy with its staff.

 
At 1:53 PM, October 29, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And someone in middle-management will probably be offered a chance to resign as a wake-up call to staff.
They'll wind up having "Privacy / Patient Confidentiality" workshops, hire a consultant to tell them what they already know and go floor to floor with in-service presentations.

Just a hunch.

 
At 8:47 PM, October 29, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Her medical records are nobody's buisiness. No ones but her family and caregivers.
2. Her family is courageous to try to set a precedent in the legal system with this lawsuit.
3. I feel they are trying to hold hospitals and people accountable to a high standard weather a patient is dead or alive and an expectation of privacy. The precedent in this suit if set could protect you or your family members down the road if god forbid it was needed. The hospital should be held accountable regardless of the fact that Anne died. In not securing their records, they basically allowed a HIPPA violation to happen.
4. Anne would have fought for this kind of precedent to start reform. Not for herself, but so that no one else would have to endure such circumstances.

I applaud the courage of Anne's mom and dad. And yes it may be hard to believe in this world full of nasty people that someone could have actually been every good and wonderful thing that was said about them, but she was.

 
At 9:20 PM, November 01, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just an all around sad situation.

 
At 12:06 AM, November 04, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nuff said.

 
At 1:56 PM, December 05, 2011, Anonymous xlpharmacy said...

In my personal opinion I think that that lawsuit is not necessary since it was not required a lawsuit, they could reach an verbal agreement

 
At 10:20 PM, December 05, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huh?

 
At 1:50 PM, December 06, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the people that accessed the records take the information contained therein to the public? I don't recall seeing anyone on 60 Minutes telling us what was actually in those records or hear of anyone writing a book and making money off her hospital records. What did they gain from looking up the records?
7:18 says the HIPAA law prevents "uses and disclosures" how did they use and disclose the records? Just wondering. Seems like a big deal was made of it because there was something in there that people didn't want anyone to know.

 
At 2:51 PM, December 26, 2011, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:50 PM, December 06
The "big deal" is simply that a person has a right to privacy, PERIOD! Personal medical records are personal...end of story. Your health information (regardless of whether or not there's anything unusual is immaterial)...is private and no one's business but yours and kept between you and your healthcare provider. It's no one else's business....this is the big deal.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home