[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
In a message dated 96-06-13 19:23:28 EDT, METRA1001 writes:
<< ALERT!
<< This p.m. I heard that today The Supreme Court ( Justice John ...Souter?)
held that mental health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a
CRIMINAL CASE; however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the
privilege does NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health
at issue. This case has been followed for months by privacy advocates as
pivotal in determining privacy and patient/physician privilege.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records can no longer be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry. The records CAN be dredged up in civil cases
(as when an insured sues an insurer who refuses to honor a legitimate injury
claim.)
This is fine for criminals, and great news for them, BUT for honest people,
i.e. regular citizens (non criminals) who thought they discussed their
problems in total confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records
CAN be dredged up and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers
dodge claims, and allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical
problems, if they have become disabled, and the auto or disability insurer
refused to cover the injury, and the insured is forced to take the matter to
court.
According to this ruling, insurer lawyers can continue to read (and ridicule)
patients' individual psychotherapy session notes in court, in public, as a
defense against the claim, and as a way to embarass and humiliate
(intimidate) patients, who thought they spoke in total confidentiality, by
the threat of public disclosure of very private matters. In this state we are
now broadcasting (TV) civil crimes. This is a severe blow to privacy
This is a win/lose situation. The criminals won, the regular citizens lost.
Managed care will be happy to know that they can still use mental health
records against unsuspecting patients. This is a devastating blow to
psychotherapy, and another winner for the insurers, who are experts at
exploiting mental health records (as in reading them aloud and ridiculing
them in public, in a courtroom, as a defense (intimidation) against a claim).
AS I have said before, anything you say in to a therapist, if need be, CAN
and WILL be used against you, years after the fact, if you are involved in
any car wreck injury, disability, or workers comp claim. So as far as that
is concerned things have not changed a bit. The court has upheld its previous
decision, that the APA brought before it again this year on the 'fast track'.
As Bollas and Sundelson say in their compelling book "The New Informants"
(referring to psychotherapists), therapists will continue to be called to
court to testify AGAINST their own patients (who erroneously THOUGHT the
therapist was their ADVOCATE), breaching a most sacred trust. And, as their
book says, the court, today has affirmed again the fact that the "State's
NEED-TO-KNOW ALWAYS outweighs the patient's or the therapist's need for
privacy." Regretfully, no one ever informs the patient of this.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
This is a monumental blow, and unfortunately, few will know the ramifications
until they are involved in a civil case, and their entire medical histories
are demanded.
Alex
>>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Fwd: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
Date: 96-06-13 19:23:28 EDT
From: METRA1001
To: CPR MA
CC: KSHORE
ALERT!
<< << In a message dated 96-06-13 18:23:31 EDT, METRA1001 writes:
<< This p.m. I heard that today The Supreme Court ( Justice John ...Souter?)
held that mental health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a
CRIMINAL CASE; however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the
privilege does NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health
at issue. This case has been followed for months by privacy advocates as
pivotal in determining privacy and patient/physician privilege.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records cannot be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry. They CAN be dredged up in civil cases (as when
an insured sues an insurer who refuses to honor a legitimate claim.)
This is fine for criminals, and great news for them, BUT for honest people
(non criminals) who thought they discussed their problems in total
confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records CAN be dredged up
and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers dodge claims, and
allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical problems, if they
have become disabled, and the auto or disability insurer refused to cover the
injury, and the insured is forced to take the matter to court.
According to this ruling, insurer lawyers can continue to read (and ridicule)
patients' individual psychotherapy session notes in court, in public, as a
defense against the claim, and as a way to embarass and humiliate
(intimidate) patients, who thought they spoke in total confidentiality, by
the threat of public disclosure of very private matters. In this state we are
now broadcasting (TV) civil crimes. This is a severe blow to privacy
This is a win/lose situation. The criminals won, the regular citizens lost.
Managed care will be happy to know that they can still use mental health
records against unsuspecting patients. This is a devastating blow to
psychotherapy, and another winner for the insurers, who are experts at
exploiting mental health records (as in reading them aloud and ridiculing
them in public, in a courtroom). AS I have said before, anything you say in
to a therapist, if need be, CAN and WILL be used against you, years after the
fact, if you are involved in any car wreck injury, disability, or workers
comp claim. So as far as that is concerned things have not changed a bit.
As Bollas and Sundelson say in their compelling book "The New Informants"
(referring to psychotherapists), therapists will continue to be called to
court to testify AGAINST their own patients (who erroneously THOUGHT the
therapist was their ADVOCATE), breaching a most sacred trust. And, as their
book says, the court, today has affirmed again the fact that the "State's
NEED-TO-KNOW ALWAYS outweighs the patient's or the therapist's need for
privacy." Regretfully, no one ever informs the patient of this.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
This is a monumental blow, and unfortunately, few will know the ramifications
until they are involved in a civil case, and their entire medical histories
are demanded.
Alex
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Fwd: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
Date: 96-06-13 18:42:32 EDT
From: METRA1001
To: Rdpa
Doug:
<< In a message dated 96-06-13 18:23:31 EDT, METRA1001 writes:
<< This p.m. I heard that today The Supreme Court ( Justice John ...Souter?)
held that mental health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a
CRIMINAL CASE; however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the
privilege does NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health
at issue. This case has been followed for months by privacy advocates as
pivotal in determining privacy and patient/physician privilege.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records cannot be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry. They CAN be dredged up in civil cases (as when
an insured sues an insurer who refuses to honor a legitimate claim.)
This is fine for criminals, and great news for them, BUT for honest people
(non criminals) who thought they discussed their problems in total
confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records CAN be dredged up
and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers dodge claims, and
allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical problems, if they
have become disabled, and the auto or disability insurer refused to cover the
injury, and the insured is forced to take the matter to court.
According to this ruling, insurer lawyers can continue to read (and ridicule)
patients' individual psychotherapy session notes in court, in public, as a
defense against the claim, and as a way to embarass and humiliate
(intimidate) patients, who thought they spoke in total confidentiality, by
the threat of public disclosure of very private matters. In this state we are
now broadcasting (TV) civil crimes. This is a severe blow to privacy
This is a win/lose situation. The criminals won, the regular citizens lost.
Managed care will be happy to know that they can still use mental health
records against unsuspecting patients. Also, anyone interested in managed
care needs to read the JULY issue of Smart Money Magazine pg 100 (loopholes
in the Safety Net), about the loopholes managed care organizations have in
denying healthcare treatment, due to obscure, and often undisclosed, clauses
in the contracts. Highly recommended.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
Alex >>
>>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Fwd: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
Date: 96-06-13 18:39:16 EDT
From: METRA1001
To: MCL@rtc2.icdi.wvu.edu
MCL:
<< In a message dated 96-06-13 18:23:31 EDT, METRA1001 writes:
<< This p.m. I heard that today The Supreme Court ( Justice John ...Souter?)
held that mental health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a
CRIMINAL CASE; however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the
privilege does NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health
at issue. This case has been followed for months by privacy advocates as
pivotal in determining privacy and patient/physician privilege.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records cannot be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry. They CAN be dredged up in civil cases (as when
an insured sues an insurer who refuses to honor a legitimate claim.)
This is fine for criminals, and great news for them, BUT for honest people
(non criminals) who thought they discussed their problems in total
confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records CAN be dredged up
and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers dodge claims, and
allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical problems, if they
have become disabled, and the auto or disability insurer refused to cover the
injury, and the insured is forced to take the matter to court.
According to this ruling, insurer lawyers can continue to read (and ridicule)
patients' individual psychotherapy session notes in court, in public, as a
defense against the claim, and as a way to embarass and humiliate
(intimidate) patients, who thought they spoke in total confidentiality, by
the threat of public disclosure of very private matters. In this state we are
now broadcasting (TV) civil crimes. This is a severe blow to privacy
This is a win/lose situation. The criminals won, the regular citizens lost.
Managed care will be happy to know that they can still use mental health
records against unsuspecting patients. Also, anyone interested in managed
care needs to read the JULY issue of Smart Money Magazine pg 100 (loopholes
in the Safety Net), about the loopholes managed care organizations have in
denying healthcare treatment, due to obscure, and often undisclosed, clauses
in the contracts. Highly recommended.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
Alex >>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Fwd: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
Date: 96-06-13 18:31:54 EDT
From: METRA1001
To: PAIN-L@sjuvm.stjohns.edu
In a message dated 96-06-13 18:23:31 EDT, METRA1001 writes:
<< This p.m. I heard that The Supreme Court ( Justice John ...Souter?) held
that mental health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a CRIMINAL
CASE; however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the privilege
does NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health at issue.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records cannot be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry. They CAN be dredged up in civil cases (as when
an insured sues an insurer who refuses to honor a legitimate claim.)
This is fine for criminals, and great news for them, BUT for honest people
(non criminals) who thought they discussed their problems in total
confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records CAN be dredged up
and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers dodge claims, and
allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical problems, if they
have become disabled, and the auto or disability insurer refused to cover the
injury, and the insured is forced to take the matter to court.
According to this ruling, insurer lawyers can continue to read (and ridicule)
patients' individual psychotherapy session notes in court, in public, as a
defense against the claim, and as a way to embarass and humiliate
(intimidate) patients, who thought they spoke in total confidentiality, by
the threat of public disclosure of very private matters. In this state we are
now broadcasting (TV) civil crimes. This is a severe blow to privacy
This is a win/lose situation. The criminals won, the regular citizens lost.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
Alex
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: U.S. Supreme Court Decision TODAY!!!
Date: 96-06-13 18:23:31 EDT
From: METRA1001
To: JMGentle
Mark:
This p.m. I heard that The Supreme Court (John ...Souter?) held that mental
health records could not be used AGAINST a patient in a CRIMINAL CASE;
however, it upheld the right to obtain the records (where the privilege does
NOT exist) where a patient puts his physical or mental health at issue.
In other words, things will stay just like they are now, except psychotherapy
records cannot be dredged up as a way to attack someone who has (or is
suspected to have) committed a crime, as a way to go on a fishing expedition
for additional dirty laundry.
This is fine for criminals, but for people who thought they discussed their
problems in total confidence, five, ten, or twenty years ago, THOSE records
CAN be dredged up and used AGAINST the patient, as a way to help insurers
dodge claims, and allege 'psychosomatic' disorders as the cause of physical
problems.
Didn't know if you had heard, so I thought I'd give you a 'heads up' on it.
Z