0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And these blind people call us CRAZY!
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!
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,You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginWell 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. QuoteKlein 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: QuoteBasically, 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: Quote "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 conditionsThe author of the referenced article closed with this statement: QuoteAt 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.
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."
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.
"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."
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.
What journalists can doHealth-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."]
Bec, Leaked like Klein's mouth.
Quote from: "bec"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.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginQuoteProtected 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.You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
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.
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.Quote from: "bec"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.Quote 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, lolI 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. PeaceYou are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.
