Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Hoax Investigation => General Hoax Investigation => Contradictions and all stuff that doesn't add up => Topic started by: wishingstar on June 03, 2011, 01:19:59 AM
-
So, here it is almost two years....with all that has been happening on the threads, I feel more and more things are heating up.....past the simmer ;) I think of these times as, "reflective peace"....a calm before the storm. I have not felt that slowness people talk about. I guess it's a matter of the glass half full, or the glass half empty.....how you look at things. I have been searching out one area that has been touched upon, but never fully recognized. I have mentioned it, several other members have mentioned it also. After a couple solid weeks of reading up on the subject and finding things I can't explain...I decided to post about it. Hopefully, you guys will be willing dig around the subject as well. It's pretty easy to see that all is not what it appears. One way or another, June 25, 2009 was only the beginning of a particularly terrifying nightmare..........now that I have that bit of random writing off my chest, on with the investigation.
What I was talking about earlier can be summed up in one phrase: HIPAA. The laws pertaining to hippa clearly state that medical records of any sort may not be made public. Unless, authorized by the patient. I am not going to post all the hippa laws..there is too much information. I will just post links to some very interesting things I have run across. Here is a link to the basic HIPAA website......it might take a few pots of very strong tea to get through:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/ (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/)
From our own forum, if you just search "HIPAA" you find some great posts. (I tried to give a link...wouldn't copy)
Now, onto some interesting articles that mention HIPAA. This first one comes from a person that used to be a reporter. I find the 4th paragraph very interesting:
http://blog.tritechems.com/2009/07/trag ... hipaa.html (http://blog.tritechems.com/2009/07/tragedy-media-and-hipaa.html)
from that 4th paragraph of this article:
"On the other hand, based on my experiences with the media – in the past as a reporter, and more recently as a responder – it is possible that the reporter pieced together information from several sources and just wrote the article in a way that implies that all the information came from the LAFD captain."
Next article.....I find this article amazing. It's the most detailed account I have read yet. It's written by Stephen J. Ruda, LA Fire Captain (at least then he was...);
http://www.fireengineering.com/index/ar ... chael.html (http://www.fireengineering.com/index/articles/display/4846969673/articles/fire-engineering/volume-162/issue-10/departments/what-we_learned/lessons-from_the_michael.html)
The next article comes from everybody's favorite rag...News of the World. Believe it or not, they bring me to what I have always believed is the ultimate HIPAA violation....The Paramedics Report:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/ne ... -bars.html (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/news/761057/Damning-ambulance-report-that-could-put-stars-medic-behind-bars.html)
Now that I have the articles out of the way. I'd like to focus on the Paramedics report. I first saw this report back in mid-2010. (you may want to pull up a copy of it...I am the Neanderthal of the group) Here is a thread I did about it:
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10915&hilit=+remembering+michael (http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10915&hilit=+remembering+michael)
The LAFD is a HIPAA covered entity...they have to obey the laws. This report is generated each time a paramedic goes out on a call. It is sort of their notes of what happened and becomes a permanent part of the patient's medical record.
Here is a training manual for the LAFD...section 4 talks about the form used by the paramedics:
http://lafdtraining.org/ists/books/bk35.pdf (http://lafdtraining.org/ists/books/bk35.pdf)
"THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE REPORT (F-902M) is a subpoenable legal, medical, and billing document that becomes a permanent part of the patient's medical records. First on scene prehospital care providers shall initiate an F-902M for ALL calls dispatched, except "returned by radio." RefertoLAFD,Book5(F-902MInstructionManual)."
And the Book 5 (F-902M Instruction Manual):
http://lafdtraining.org/ists/books/bk05.pdf (http://lafdtraining.org/ists/books/bk05.pdf)
This is my favorite link. It clearly states EXACTLY how to fill out this particular form. Which does not match up with what we have seen.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multime ... 00626a.jpg (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00100/jacko_letter1_2103_100626a.jpg)
With this link to Book 5, you can see errors in how the form was filled out. Beginning with this quote:
"ENTRIES
Use a blue or black ball point pen and apply firm pressure to ensure clarity on all copies. PRINT all entries using CAPITAL LETTERS. For "check boxes" use a consistent symbol throughout the form, (e.g. use either all " / ", " X ", or " 4 ". Do not use dots or dashes."
*You can clearly see the handwriting in not ALL CAPS
Also, Book 5 goes line by line how to fill it out....I found some of these to be incorrectly filled out:
1) the second box of the report "Incident No." - the manual states it should be a four digit number, it's 512
2) the age box, the manual states:
"For all patients over the age of two years, (using three digits), enter the age in years followed by marking the Y.O. box.
EXAMPLE: A 25-year old patient's age shall be entered as 025and mark the Y.O. box." MJ's age is stated in the box as 50.
3) the box named 'VIA" - meaning how was the patient transported....it's not marked at all
4) Patient Information box:
"Name / Last, First and MI: Enter the patient's full last and first name, followed by the patient's middle initial using CAPITAL LETTERS."
- his first name is spelled wrong, it's not ALL CAPS and no middle initial is given.
5) the date of birth box:
"Enter the patient's date of birth using eight numbers in the MM/DD/YYYY format."
- the incorrect date is written and it's written with dots, not back-slashes (08 -28 -1958)
6) Patient File No. box:
"Patient File No.
The "Patient File Number," assigned by the receiving facility, is required when there is no patient name, address, and / or insurance information. If a member is unable to obtain a patient file number during their shift, the EMS Report should notbeheldback. DocumentinthePatientFileNo.space"UNABLETO OBTAIN" and forward the EMS Report through the normal routing procedure."
- I am stumped with this one...the number given is : 36/w3975944_4.
Why is there a number there?
7) The Comments section:
"All comments shall be clear,concise,and complete."
- not! the report is barely legible at times.........
I know it seems like I got off topic in my own thread.....but not really. I firmly believe that if this had been a factual death and this report was released, the LAFD would be in a huge HIPAA violation. But, because the report is so poorly filled out (on purpose, I am sure), you can totally see the hoax exposed with it. Here is a final quote about this report...remember LAFD is under HIPAA laws:
"GENERAL INFORMATION
The EMS Report is a legal document and can be subpoenaed. It becomes a permanent part of the patient's medical records. Pre-hospital care providers shall enter factual, objective observations, and findings only. Document justifications for actions done or not done and ensure that you are complete and consistent, especially when policies, procedures, or protocols are involved."
There is another piece of information that was clearly a HIPAA violation: the ambulance screen. There is very private information contained within the screen including the phone number involved, the address, age and basic problem.....not breathing at all. HIPAA restricts all personal information and all information regarding health issues....even not breathing. (that's a pretty big health issue!) The Remembering Michael magazine has both of these (the report and screen) pictured in it. My question is how did they obtain permission....by whom, where, when? Having this published like this is in clear violation of hipaa laws.
I think I am hoaxed out for the evening.......I hope I was able to make clear, some of the obvious signs that this is a hoax. Thanks for hanging in there....I don't usually post such long things....my apologies.
Have a beautiful week!
LOVE
-
Really dont know what to think at all..... :? :?
-
Thank you wishigstar for such an informative post! :D
Sooooooo many violations, it's unbelievable! I knew that everything is so wrong with all the documents being out for public to see, especially the autopsy report, unacceptable! And thank you for showing all the mistakes in Paramedics report, i've never seen this report before. How could they write a wrong date of birth? :shock:
So there are only 3 options of how these documents been published:
1) Jackson family gave their permission (VERY MUCH doubtful, in the situation if Michael really died)
2) Media stole all these documents and published it without any permission (VERY doubtful, as far as we know no law suits have been filed against any magazine or online reported for publishing these documents)
3) Michael is not dead, all documents are fake and no HIPAA laws have been violated, because he is the one who is willing to show them to a public eye!
I guess i'll go and search online some examples when media violated HIPAA laws. typing/
But the only things i don't get is, WHY WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SEE ALL THESE VIOLATIONS? WHY NOBODY ELSE CARES? And these blind people call us CRAZY! lolol/
-
Thanks for your post wishingstar :) Very good to point out about violated HIPAA laws. From what I know about HIPAA law is that when a medic professional violates the law he/she's in BIG trouble and bye bye job. No well thinking person will risk this, though there are people who have a weak spine and will risk this for quite some money.
@kristina :) And these blind people call us CRAZY!
:lol: They are SO blind that they don't see their own craziness :lol: They don't wanna know, I think it's getting too complicated for them, or may be they are thinking "what you don't know, won't hurt you" Sad really :(
3) Michael is not dead, all documents are fake and no HIPAA laws have been violated, because he is the one who is willing to show them to a public eye!
I guess i'll go and search online some examples when media violated HIPAA laws.
But the only things i don't get is, WHY WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SEE ALL THESE VIOLATIONS? WHY NOBODY ELSE CARES? And these blind people call us CRAZY!
I quoted this one in particular, because referring to corruption I'd think that Michael wants to expose this. This is a good example. Fake documents, real documents, it doesn't matter, what matters is that there are always "weak" people in organizations/institutes (medical, entertainment, justice).
All for L.O.V.E.
-
as i remember geraldene hughes posted on facebook a while ago that dr. lee was fined for what information she gave regarding michael. don't know how true it is.
-
Wow guys...thank you so much for your thoughts on this. I really appreciate it......
@Kristina4LOVE....great points you make! I absolutely believe Michael is the one behind the release of all these documents. If he had really passed away, why on Earth would the family give permission to release such detailed information. No way......they valued his privacy, for his kids sake. I don't think even the media could have got their greedy little paws on some of these documents........are they really that stupid (don't answer that!). Thank you for the response....awesome!
@everlastinglove_MJ.....you are welcome! It felt really good to actually dig in again and really investigate this stuff. It's such a tangled web. You are so correct when you say, "bye bye job!" They will not even let the ink dry on termination papers. HIPAA violations are not to be messed. What you don't know, won't hurt you..... It's very sad indeed!!! It's like they just turn the other cheek and pretend it's not there.....juvenile really. Thank you for the post....awesome thoughts about it!
@suspiciousmind.....how you doin'? I keep you close in thought and prayer....I hope all is well...sending love! I do seem to remember Dr. Lee. Thank you for bringing that up....had forgotten it totally! I must go forth and Google suspicious// .....that one was just for you!
@xxmjxx..... I totally get what you mean! I didn't really know what to think either. But, when I look at this stuff directly in correspondence with the laws, or the printed LAFD manuals...I really have to question what I am seeing. Thanks too for the post...I am sure many folks are in the same boat!
Blessings to each of you...and the rest of the big hoax family!
-
This is also possible the info was leaked ....
-
Leaked like Klein's mouth.
So Klein calls up TMZ live to proclaim that Michael Jackson was gay and Klein's employee (son???) was the love of his life. Ok Klein, now you've got everyone's attention. Fan or non-fan, who didn't get wind of this one? It's tailor made for gossip.
I found this article which spawned this post,
http://www.salon.com/news/environment/v ... nold_klein (http://www.salon.com/news/environment/vital_signs/2009/07/13/dr_arnold_klein)
Well seems Klein has a small problem. He has violated HIPAA laws.... not once, not twice, not even recently, but many times over the course of the past 10 months. Seems every single time he has gone media whoring, Klein has violated this law.
Klein began by revealing personal details about his friendship with the singer. To my surprise, he then divulged facts about Jackson that only a physician knows about a patient. In describing his first meeting with Jackson, Klein noted how the singer had "a butterfly rash and he also had severe crusting you could see on the anterior portion of his scalp." He subsequently "did a biopsy" on Jackson and diagnosed him with Lupus, an autoimmune disorder that causes those and other symptoms.
Klein went on to reveal many other details, like how he was "rebuilding" Jackson's face before his comeback concert. On the subject of drug use, Klein continued to chat up the audience. He admitted to providing Jackson with Demerol to sedate him and stated that, contrary to reports, Jackson was not "riddled with needle marks" (though Klein told King he never examined his entire body). Perhaps most revealingly, Klein, as if he had Jackson's chart in front of him, dished about the singer's past medical history. "Michael, at one time, had an addiction," he said. "And he went to England and he withdrew that addiction at a secure setting, where he went off of drugs altogether. And what I told Michael when I met him in this present situation when I was seeing him, that I had to keep reducing the dosage of what he was on, because he came to me with a huge tolerance level."
This is a problem for Klein because he has revealed intimate medical details on one of his patients. The HIPAA law expressly prohibits this, explained here:
Basically, the law forbids medical professionals from disclosing health information unless a patient provides consent to do so. Among other things, HIPAA is the reason that your doctor can't fax a letter to you or transfer your records to another doctor without your filling out permission forms. It's the reason the mother of a teenage patient of mine, a nurse, was disciplined when she looked at the medical records of her own son. It's also the reason you'll never see me, or any other physician, reveal the identities of our patients -- without their consent -- when we discuss or write about them.
Klein could face sanctions, fines, and disciplinary proceedings as a medical professional for violating this law. And Klein is of course aware of this law and the line he has crossed as exposed here in this statement released by his lawyers shortly following 6-25-09:
"Dr. Klein is aware of media reports connecting him to Michael Jackson. Because of patient confidentiality, Dr. Klein will make no statement on any reports or allegations. Out of respect for his patients and adherence to federal HIPAA regulations, Dr. Klein asks that the media not contact him or his patients, nor interfere with their medical treatments. Like millions of Michael's fans around the world, Dr. Klein is saddened by Michael's death and extends his condolences to the family."
Following this statement, Klein set off on the talk show circuit.
What makes this situation truly odd is this. Klein touts himself "dermatologist to the stars". By "betraying" Michael, Klein has committed virtual career suicide. Tell me what celebrity wants to continue to be a patient of shifty eyed, loose lips Klein, now that he is acting as the tabloid source for all things juicy following the "death" of one of his high profile clients? Call me crazy but I don't see a lot of Hollywood's A list signing up to be the next source for fodder.
If this was for real, Klein's office would be instantly transformed into a ghost town with nothing on the book. Suddenly this man should be experiencing a whole lot of free time for his willful sharing of personal information. Why in the world would Klein DO this?
Really the whole thing makes no sense UNLESS Klein is covered under one of the following two loopholes in this situation.
1. Klein is telling LIES, which does not violate the HIPAA law because the information is not accurate, or
2. Michael gave Klein consent to speak publicly about his medical conditions
The author of the referenced article closed with this statement:
At the same time, said Phillips, it's possible that Jackson may have given Klein permission to discuss his PHI, or private health information, in public. In that case, Phillips [Stephen K. Phillips, a healthcare attorney in San Francisco] said, "you haven't violated the law by doing so, unless and until that authorization is withdrawn." I tried to contact Klein to clarify these important points several times, but never received a response. His attorney didn't get back to me either.
So Klein could be straight up lying... and free and clear under the law... but playing a very dangerous game with his career, or Michael is directing him to talk. Bottom line, when you look at the law, and the facts, Klein is good for the hoax.
http://exploringthehoax.wordpress.com/2 ... des-again/ (http://exploringthehoax.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/shifty-eyed-klein-rides-again/)
-
Ps, the nurse Cherilyn Lee violated HIPAA laws when she spoke on Larry King.
-
bec thank you so much for posting a very interesting article about Klein!
So he is either lying or Michael gave him the permission.
If Klein is simply lying, as you mentioned above, it puts his career in a very shaky position! I would not want to have a doctor like that for sure!
What i think is happening is that Michael gave him permission to talk lies about him. Because most of the information he is giving is not true. I personally think that it's not true, all the drugs he was giving him, it's just too much for one human being! Remember the list of Demerol injections TMZ published? That's crazy in my opinion.
-
That's a cited old facebook post of Klein where he says "Hippa does nothing" (under the red square).
(http://i.imgur.com/L7iVF.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/L7iVF.jpg
Found on:
http://mj-overload.com/showthread.php?1045-Arnold-Klein-Facebook-post-April-18-2011&highlight=klein+april
-
I found a very interesting document, which explains how media and Hospitals can communicate and how it effects HIPAA laws. It also shows list of penalties for wrongful disclosure of PHI, pretty harsh! http://www.nhanet.org/pdf/hipaa/hipaamediaguide.pdf (http://www.nhanet.org/pdf/hipaa/hipaamediaguide.pdf)
From this document i may assume that because no media reporters or doctors have been fined or sued, all these documents have been disclosed with Michael's permission. Well if media is not in on the hoax (and i believe it's not, at least not all of it) then it mean that the permission came from Jackson family (their attorneys).
I think that the best solution for now maybe is to call the hospital (not UCLA specifically, but any other hospital will do), explain them a situation, without mentioning any names, and ask them how HIPAA laws have been avoided in this situation. But it must be someone who lives in US, even better in LA. I wish i could do it, but this call would cost me a fortune :lol: I wish i lived in LA and had nothing else to do but run around the city and bother people with my questions lolol/ They are very lucky that i don't live there. So if someone has a will and time to make this call, please please do bounce/
We can't speculate any longer, we need a person who knows all about HIPAA and who will be able to help us.
Because this other article confused me even more :?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/pre ... hipaa_news (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/press/topic.aspx?topic=hipaa_news)
What journalists can do
Health-care information the media obtains independently is not subject to HIPAA and may be published or broadcast freely, subject to limitations and internal policies on printing information about minors or the deceased. Because HIPAA prevents covered agencies from disclosing names, reporters should obtain as much information as possible from non-covered agencies before turning to hospitals or medical providers for confirmation.
Journalists should also be prepared to challenge a source's claim that a particular agency is covered by HIPAA. If a law enforcement agency, fire department or other agency claims it cannot provide health-care information because of HIPAA, one helpful resource may be a Department of Health and Human Services Web page that can help answer such questions as "Is a Person, Business, or Agency a Covered Health Care Provider?" This Web site will ask a few questions designed to determine if the business or agency is covered. Walking a source through this short question-and-answer process may help convince him or her that HIPAA does not apply.
To assist in efforts to understand and clarify the impact of HIPAA, journalists should collect examples of information they are unable to obtain because of HIPAA (whether applied correctly or incorrectly). With this information industry groups such as the Newspaper Association of America and American Society of Newspaper Editors can explore lobbying and potential litigation that will clarify the impact of HIPAA on newsgathering at the national level. At the local level, reporters and editors should meet with agency public information officers to clarify their application of HIPAA. In this way, the media can help structure the application of HIPAA and take action to remedy its inevitable misuses.
[Editor's note: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reported in August 2004 that a federal district judge in Denver had dismissed a lawsuit against a newspaper brought by a hospital under HIPAA. HIPAA "displays no intent to create a private right of action" for the release of private health-related information, ruled Judge Walker Miller on Aug. 2. He said HIPAA regulated only those "who might have access to individuals' health information."]
-
Nice work wishingstar! Yes, MJ broke lots of rules to get people's attention, but still most don't get the messages. I'll read this better tomorrow.
Bec, Leaked like Klein's mouth.
:lol:
-
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18053&p=310112#p310112 (http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18053&p=310112#p310112)
Gina, if he did it for money, what's stopping the paramedics from saying, uh, that pic is fake. People who have no interest in keeping it quiet would know that it was fake. It's quite a famous pic. I highly doubt real emt's would say nothing at all about it in 20 months.
Paramedics are more than likely bound by the same privacy/HIPAA laws as doctors, nurses, etc. That is why the real paramedics won't say anything about that day. They legally can't talk about a patient. ;) They can speak about what happened that day in a court of law because they may have been given a subpoena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_ ... nformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_health_information)
Protected health information (PHI), under the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), is any information about health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to a specific individual. This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of a patient’s medical record or payment history.
http://www.hipaa.org/ (http://www.hipaa.org/)
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/un ... index.html (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html)
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18185&p=313026#p313026 (http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=18185&p=313026#p313026)
You sure it is not against the HIPPA law? Btw: I have a background in medical coding and billing. I have worked for a private Dr.'s office and I have worked for a health insurance company processing claims and customer service. I legally could not say (outside of the realm of my job) I didn't work on so and so claim.
Only exception to that would be if I was given certain privilege to speak on it.
It's not against the HIPPA law for a paramedic to say that is not him (self, the paramedic "it's not me") appearing as a subject in a famous photograph of the victim of a high profile manslaughter case.
I don't buy it... that the authenticity would never be questioned if real paramedics (not in on it) were involved on 6/25/09.
I'm sticking to common sense dictating that the paramedics were actors, both that day and the other day-- even if that means the LAFD (or at least one) were working as actors at one point.
Protected health information (PHI), under the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), is any information about health status, provision of health care, or payment for health care that can be linked to a specific individual. This is interpreted rather broadly and includes any part of a patient’s medical record or payment history.
The paramedics are providing the patient health care therefore they become part of the privacy issue. They also become part of the patient's medical record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guilty of saying some outrages things on how this happened. Running two theories at the same time, lol
I said Michael rode to the hospital on the gurney based on footage being shown to us of a dude sitting up. I also said that footage could of been a subliminal clue to get people wondering who the heck was that? I also said one of the paramedics was suspect to me in the sense he looks similiar to Michael. I also said that the paramedic in question was shown being filmed through the gate and that perhaps that was another subliminal clue to get people wondering who the heck is that? I also said that would connect the dots to the paramedic in question as being Michael riding to the hospital not as a dead person but his own medic.
I am now going to defer to the post from TS that gives hints and clues to how this was done and how many would need to be in on it.
Peace
viewtopic.php?f=125&t=7194 (http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=7194)
This is a good thread wishingstar. You explained so well what I was trying to say in TIAI threads 2/26 and TIAI March 9. I am glad you added the part of the fake documents so in reality there is no violation. Also the part about the media splicing quotes of info to create their version of facts. Some of the info said to the media may not be true or real. Some of these officials may have said what was allowed and did not violate the HIPAA law regarding the PHI.
The exposing of these problems would most likely be happening to. Thanks for the extra info you members have posted.
Peace beerchug
@bec,
I did not chose our convos on the subject to say anything except those quotes were the best I found when I talked about it in more than a few threads. fresse/
-
Yes, lies do not violate HIPAA.
-
Yep, one of my favorite hoax topics.
In the HIPAA guidelines below this article, it states that "a reporter asking for the patient by name can be privy to the general condition of the patient (If a patient does not object to this information being included in a hospital directory)"
Jermaine's Video Statement
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... id=E0C5478 (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/electronicplay.aspx?fid=73027&id=E0C5478)
Statement on the death of Michael Jackson at UCLA Medical Center
By UCLA Newsroom June 25, 2009
The family of Michael Jackson made this brief statement available [Note: To me, this implies "Hey, we at UCLA never made this statement! MJ's family just made this statement available, and they just happened to make it available while they were at UCLA."]on June 25 at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center:
The legendary King of Pop, Michael Jackson, passed away on Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 2:26 p.m. It is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home. However, the cause of his death is unknown until results of the autopsy are known.
His personal physician, who was with him at the time, attempted to resuscitate Jackson, as did paramedics who transported him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Upon arriving at the hospital at approximately 1:14 p.m., a team of doctors, including emergency physicians and cardiologists, attempted to resuscitate him for a period of more than one hour but were unsuccessful.
Jackson’s family requests that the media respect their privacy during this tragic period of time.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/me ... 94914.aspx (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/media-reports-that-michael-jackson-94914.aspx)
_____________________
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ckson.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/michael-jackson-jermaine-jackson.html)
L.A. Times
Michael Jackson's death: Jermaine Jackson speaks
June 25, 2009 | 6:52 pm
At a brief news conference in the auditorium of the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center this evening, Jermaine Jackson sighed audibly several times before addressing reporters.
“This is hard,” he said softly. “My brother, the legendary King of Pop, passed away on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 2:26 p.m.... It is believed he passed away of cardiac arrest.”
He said Michael Jackson's personal physician, Dr. Tohme R. Tohme, was with him at the house and had tried to resuscitate him [Note: Jermaine did NOT say this. The writer of this article, and also the UCLA website, infers that Thome was MJ's personal physician]. He said paramedics also tried to revive his brother and “upon arriving at the hospital at 1:14 p.m., a team of doctors, including emergency physicians and a cardiologist, worked to resuscitate him for a period of more than one hour but were unsuccessful.“
Jackson said a definitive cause of death would not be known until an autopsy is performed.
“May Allah be with you, Michael, always,” Jermaine Jackson said, ending the news conference.
UCLA officials did not say anything about Michael Jackson.
“We’re respecting the family’s wishes with respect to the patients’ privacy,” said hospital spokeswoman Roxanne Moster.
During the news conference, fans in the hospital courtyard lit candles and sang Michael Jackson songs.
-- Carla Hall in Westwood
An emotional Jermaine Jackson makes a statement to the press that his brother Michael Jackson had passed away at the UCLA Medical Center in Westwood on June 25, 2009. Genaro Molina / LA Times
________________
UCLA officials did not say anything about Michael Jackson.
UCLA did not say ANYTHING about Michael Jackson. This is true. UCLA did not even say the name "Michael Jackson" at this press conference.
“We’re respecting the family’s wishes with respect to the patients’ privacy,” said hospital spokeswoman Roxanne Moster.
The way this particular sentence is written, it makes it sound like we are talking about more than one patient, not a specific patient (like Michael Jackson) [that might just be how the journalist interpreted the spokeswoman's words, however].
An emotional Jermaine Jackson makes a statement to the press that his brother Michael Jackson had passed away at the UCLA Medical Center in Westwood on June 25, 2009.
UCLA wants to make it clear that Jermaine Jackson made a statement to the press, that UCLA did NOT make a statement to the press.
___________________
From the UCLA website
http://www.uclahealth.org/body.cfm?id=646 (http://www.uclahealth.org/body.cfm?id=646)
Patient condition reports
The UCLA media relations staff provides general patient condition information within the limitations imposed by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). A patient name is required. Release of detailed information or information about minors requires written consent of the parent, guardian or legal representative.
The American Hospital Association recommends the following one-word descriptions of a patient's general condition.
Undetermined: Patient awaiting physician assessment.
Good: Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious and comfortable. Indicators are excellent.
Fair: Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious but may be uncomfortable. Indicators are favorable.
Serious: Vital signs may be unstable and not within normal limits. Patient is acutely ill. Indicators are questionable.
Critical: Vital signs are unstable and not within normal limits. Patient may be unconscious. Indicators are unfavorable.
Treated and released: Received treatment but not admitted.
Treated and transferred: Received treatment. Transferred to a different facility.
-------------
Additionally, the California Hospital Association Guide to the Release of Patient Information to the Media can be located at http://www.edenmedicalcenter.org/images ... eGuide.pdf (http://www.edenmedicalcenter.org/images/CHAReleaseGuide.pdf)
And it says...
Under HIPAA, information about the condition and
location of a patient may be released only if the
inquiry specifically contains the patient’s name.
No information can be given out if a request does
not include the patient’s name. This is a significant
change to existing California law.
If the patient has not requested that information be
withheld, and the request for information contains
the patient’s name, hospitals generally may release
the patient’s condition and location within the
hospital.
-----------------------------------------
HIPAA Federal Guidelines
http://www.scha.org/files/documents/hipaa_faq_1_0.pdf (http://www.scha.org/files/documents/hipaa_faq_1_0.pdf)
How will HIPAA change the way medical providers release patient information to the media?
Under new HIPAA regulations, hospitals may maintain a directory that may only include a patient's name, location in the hospital, general condition, and religious affiliation. If a hospital chooses to maintain a directory, a patient must be given the opportunity to object to or restrict the use or disclosure of information contained in the directory. If a patient does not object to this information being included in a hospital directory, a reporter asking for the patient by name can be privy to the general condition of the patient. If media does not ask for the patient by name, no individual identifiable information about the patient may be disclosed.
If a patient has been given the opportunity but has chosen not to restrict their information, what kinds of condition information may be disclosed?
If HIPAA privacy standards are met, general-condition information may be provided that does not communicate specific information about the individual. The American Hospital Association recommends the following one-word descriptions of a patient's condition.
Undetermined: Patient awaiting physician and assessment.
Good: Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious and comfortable. Indicators are excellent.
Fair: Vital signs are stable and within normal limits. Patient is conscious but may be uncomfortable. Indicators are favorable.
Serious: Vitals signs may be unstable and not within normal limits. Patient is acutely ill. Indicators are questionable.
Critical: Vital signs are unstable and not within normal limits. Patient may be unconscious. Indicators are unfavorable.
Treated and Released: Patient received treatment but was not admitted.
Treated and Transferred: Received treatment. Transferred to a different facility. (Although a hospital may disclose that a patient was treated and released, it may not release information regarding the date of release or where the patient went upon release without patient authorization.)
What about patients who are unconscious or otherwise unable to give advance consent for release of their information?
The privacy regulations address situations where the opportunity to object to or restrict the use or disclosure of information cannot be practicably provided because of an individual's incapacity or emergency treatment circumstance. In such a case, a health care provider may use or disclose the patient’s general condition if the use and disclosure is (1) consistent with a prior expressed preference of the individual, if any, that is known to the covered health care provider; and (2) in the individual's best interest as determined by the covered health care provider, in the exercise of professional judgment. Both conditions must be true for a provider to release patient information under HIPAA if the patient is incapacitated.
So, for example, if a reporter is covering a traffic accident and calls the hospital asking for information about the condition of a vehicle's occupants, citing the location of the accident but not the victims' names, can the hospital provide a condition report?
Information in the directory (i.e. general condition) may be released only if the media or the public asks for the patient by name and only if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of such information. If a patient is unable to communicate for the purpose of objecting to or restricting the use of directory information, such information can be released only if any past preferences are known and disclosure is in the best interests of the patient, in the professional judgment of the medical services provider.
What if the reporter asks about the accident victim by name?
If an individual, including a representative of the media, asks for information about the patient by name, only general condition may be released and only if the patient has not objected to or restricted the release of that information.
What if a reporter calls with information that is already part of the public record, such as name or condition of the patient obtained from police reports?
Police reports and other information about hospital patients are often obtained by members of the media. The claim is frequently made that once information about a patient is in the public domain, the media are entitled to any and all information about that individual. This is not true. Health care providers are required to observe the general prohibitions against releasing patient information found in the HIPAA privacy standards, state statutes or regulations and the common law, regardless of what information is in the hands of public agencies or the public in general. Requests for a patient’s health information from the media on grounds that a public agency, such as law enforcement, is involved in the matter should be denied. (If the inquiry is made by patient name a general one-word condition can be released, so as the patient has not opted out of the directory.)
Can a hospital confirm that a patient has died?
Although hospitals have traditionally released information about patient deaths to the media upon request, HIPAA allows the disclosure of such information only in response to certain law enforcement inquiries; to coroners, medical examiners and funeral directors to allow them to do their jobs; and to family, a personal representative or another person directly responsible for the patient's care. Reports to public health authorities in their role of collecting vital statistics are also allowed.
One exception to this prohibition would be within the facility directory exception discussed earlier. If the patient is still within the facility, then it is arguable that death is a condition that may be disclosed as a general condition of the patient after next of kin has been notified. If the deceased patient has been removed from the facility, then the facility must obtain a signed authorization from the patient's personal representative to release information about the patient's death. No other details, however, about the circumstances, time, cause, etc. can be released without written authorization from the patient’s representative.