Quote:
It's not the hospitals. It's the aide in the ER or on the wards who overhears something and has a buddy that will pay for any info that could lead to a suit.
And so long as the subpoena includes a letter of assurance (that they've notified the patient and there's been enough time to object), then covered entities are more than able to release medical records for third parties.
|
In that instance, why would a subpoena be needed? If the PI lawyer represents the Plaintiff/Patient, all he needs to submit is a medical records request on behalf of the Plaintiff/Patient.
Under the TX law, the Patient is a third party to a lawsuit between the abortion provider and a Plaintiff suing the provider. The Plaintiff there (let's call him "Shitball," because that fits) sues the provider and then demands the records of a third party patient whom he alleges received an abortion.
The provider has to notify the Patient before turning those over. Patient then objects to disclosure of private information in a case in which Patient is not even a party.
Do you see a judge overruling the privacy interests of a third party - privacy interests in the most personal and sensitive forms of information imaginable - to satisfy discovery requests from a litigant suing a third party under a statute nakedly enacted for purely political purposes over broad public objection?
