A Florida judge has green-lighted Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul’s invasion of privacy lawsuit against ESPN and its reporter Adam Schefter for posting his private medical records online to millions of readers.
The ruling by Miami Dade County Judge Marcia G. Cooke sets the stage for the state’s second high-profile legal battle in a year between a sports star and a media organization over privacy issues. Wrestler Hulk Hogan won a record-breaking $140 million victory over Gawker in March for publishing his sex video..... |
What is real music?
I was thinking the same thing....wouldn't that be great.
From what I remembered, I thought the bigger suit was that the chart had medical information about a different patient who was not in the public sphere.
Ditto. I can't stand that little bastard.
There was a settlement with the hospital.
ESPN is not bound by HIPAA.
From what I remembered, I thought the bigger suit was that the chart had medical information about a different patient who was not in the public sphere.
How could Schefter obtain them legally? Isn't it like receiving stolen property.
in the gawker case didn't gawker receive the Hulk Hogan sex tape legally and they still lost on the newsworthy angle.
How could Schefter obtain them legally? Someone in the hospital takes the files and then decides to give them to Schefter/ESPN. So long as Schefter didn't direct the hospital worker to take the records, he obtained them lawfully. The hospital worker obtained them unlawfully.
The question, like the Hogan sextape, or the Donald Sterling audio, turns on whether what Schefter/ESPN published is newsworthy or whether it was an unlawful public disclosure of private facts.
I hope this royally fucks ESPN and that rodent Schefter. Such gross negligence posting that information when a seasoned figure like him should know better.
How could Schefter obtain them legally? Someone in the hospital takes the files and then decides to give them to Schefter/ESPN. So long as Schefter didn't direct the hospital worker to take the records, he obtained them lawfully. The hospital worker obtained them unlawfully.
The question, like the Hogan sextape, or the Donald Sterling audio, turns on whether what Schefter/ESPN published is newsworthy or whether it was an unlawful public disclosure of private facts.
I'll take your word for it because I'm out of my element on legal matters. It seems though if you receive private, confidential, or protected information (even if you technically obtain it legally) you can't decide to make it public for any reason even if it's newsworthy.
Not to get political so this is just an example but, if someone at the IRS steals Donald Trump's tax returns and gives them to Adam Schefter can Adam publish them without consequence because they're newsworthy? I'd hope not.
Anyone that watches or holds anything that ESPN or the NFL network as anything but slanted information is really clueless.
I'd need way more facts but I have a hard time seeing JPP not win this. Medical records are incredibly private.
I think if you take a gift or accept something from somebody else, you are still bound by the legality of it, right?
If somebody hands me $10,000 from a bank robbery and I'm caught with it, I think I have some culpability in the eyes of the law. Maybe not, but that seems unlikely.
I think once Schefter released the information, he became culpable because whether or not he obtained it fairly, it was still restricted information. I think the law standard is if it is reasonable to believe the information or item is yours to use.
A different example - if somebody gives me a fake ID, even if I didn't request it, I may not be in trouble just by accepting it. But if I try to use it, I am liable.
Yup, it's a pretty clear-cut case of HIPAA privacy violations and JPP's gonna get paid by both ESPN and the Giants
Also at issue is the freedom of the press - to report their findings. These two issues are in the crosshairs with each other.
Essentially the Judge agreed today that the public's right to know does not include records covered under the Privacy Laws. I also think that's a wining legal argument.
Now, if the info turns out to be libelous and cannot be defended as newsworthy, then the publisher may be vulnerable to a civil claim for the libel, but the health care nature of the info does not give it any special status.
In fact, I would argue that because JPP is a football player whose health is important to his public performance, and that general player health is required to be reported weekly by teams, JPP's medical condition was certainly newsworthy and thus not subject to any libel claim.
But I'm not an attorney, so this is just educated opinion (and the opinion of SI apparently).
article - ( New Window )
It's much too specific, personal data. The only people who could have a right to know that much are his agent and his employer.
In fact, I would argue that because JPP is a football player whose health is important to his public performance, and that general player health is required to be reported weekly by teams, JPP's medical condition was certainly newsworthy and thus not subject to any libel claim.
Eddy -- I think SI has a biased interest here in protecting a reporter's first amendment rights - their logic does not follow, however
in this case the Judge ruled{quote] that Jason properly stated an invasion-of-privacy claim against ESPN and Adam Schefter[/quote]
Plaintiffs have argued not that ESPN Schefter had no right to report on JPPs medical condition -- but that they crossed the privacy line in publishing the medical records -- also in this case it is alleged that Schefter colluded with the Hospital worker to commit the crime -- that is tortious behavior -- paying the hospital worker to violate the Patient's Privacy rights
I think this is a little thornier than SI is portraying it.
There is no issue of libel here. Libel would be publishing false information - there has been no suggestion that Schefter posted a forged medical record, or anything false. It is purely a question of whether the record was newsworthy enough to warrant publication, or if it's a violation of JPP's privacy. (There may also be a question of if Schefter did anything illegal to get the record in the first place).
mattlawson : 12:47 pm : link : reply
could work out well for the Giants if JPP makes a shit ton off this - maybe he'll stay for a hometown discount
he just might retire....
I guess that's what happens when every time you quote "sources" already has an alternate meaning, that you're just stealing from other networks.
Quote:
How could Schefter obtain them legally? Someone in the hospital takes the files and then decides to give them to Schefter/ESPN. So long as Schefter didn't direct the hospital worker to take the records, he obtained them lawfully.
I think if you take a gift or accept something from somebody else, you are still bound by the legality of it, right?
If somebody hands me $10,000 from a bank robbery and I'm caught with it, I think I have some culpability in the eyes of the law. Maybe not, but that seems unlikely.
I think once Schefter released the information, he became culpable because whether or not he obtained it fairly, it was still restricted information. I think the law standard is if it is reasonable to believe the information or item is yours to use.
A different example - if somebody gives me a fake ID, even if I didn't request it, I may not be in trouble just by accepting it. But if I try to use it, I am liable.
I believe possessing stolen medical records would be a crime
Quote:
Now, if the info turns out to be libelous and cannot be defended as newsworthy, then the publisher may be vulnerable to a civil claim for the libel, but the health care nature of the info does not give it any special status.
There is no issue of libel here. Libel would be publishing false information - there has been no suggestion that Schefter posted a forged medical record, or anything false. It is purely a question of whether the record was newsworthy enough to warrant publication, or if it's a violation of JPP's privacy. (There may also be a question of if Schefter did anything illegal to get the record in the first place).
If it can be shown that Schefter/ESPN participated or colluded in the HIPAA violation then that could certainly change circumstances.
Absent that, my understanding of the situation remains that for newsworthy information about a public figure, the right of the press to publish trumps any right to privacy of the individual involved.
Not sure what makes Schefter any different than a doctor posting his patients medical records, because one works for the media? I don't buy it.
Quote:
How could Schefter obtain them legally? Someone in the hospital takes the files and then decides to give them to Schefter/ESPN. So long as Schefter didn't direct the hospital worker to take the records, he obtained them lawfully.
I think if you take a gift or accept something from somebody else, you are still bound by the legality of it, right?
If somebody hands me $10,000 from a bank robbery and I'm caught with it, I think I have some culpability in the eyes of the law. Maybe not, but that seems unlikely.
I think once Schefter released the information, he became culpable because whether or not he obtained it fairly, it was still restricted information. I think the law standard is if it is reasonable to believe the information or item is yours to use.
A different example - if somebody gives me a fake ID, even if I didn't request it, I may not be in trouble just by accepting it. But if I try to use it, I am liable.
FMIC, the analogy doesn't work because this isn't receipt of stolen property, but rather publishing private information that may have been obtained illegally.
This has to do with an almost unabridged freedom of the press. So long as they didn't participate or solicit the unlawful obtaining of the underlying material, they can print it. The other exceptions are military documents whose publication could cause grave danger, or private information that is not newsworthy.
Imagine a janitor at a bank found out that the bank was stealing its customers' money in a massive fraud scheme. If someone broke into the bank president's office and copied records proving that this scheme was going on, this person would be breaking the law.
However, if that person then took those records to the press, the press would be free to publish these records proving the massive fraud because the public has a right to know. The press would only be breaking the law if it helped or solicited the janitor to steal those records.
The issue when it comes to the ability of the press to publish private records, originally obtained legally or otherwise, is whether the private information is "newsworthy."
It wouldn't include Schefter. HIPAA applies to "covered entities", which includes health care providers, health plans, etc.... It wouldn't apply to Schefter or ESPN.
Quote:
In comment 13086222 SwirlingEddie said:
Quote:
Now, if the info turns out to be libelous and cannot be defended as newsworthy, then the publisher may be vulnerable to a civil claim for the libel, but the health care nature of the info does not give it any special status.
There is no issue of libel here. Libel would be publishing false information - there has been no suggestion that Schefter posted a forged medical record, or anything false. It is purely a question of whether the record was newsworthy enough to warrant publication, or if it's a violation of JPP's privacy. (There may also be a question of if Schefter did anything illegal to get the record in the first place).
If it can be shown that Schefter/ESPN participated or colluded in the HIPAA violation then that could certainly change circumstances.
Absent that, my understanding of the situation remains that for newsworthy information about a public figure, the right of the press to publish trumps any right to privacy of the individual involved.
you're wrong, but its ok.
Not sure what makes Schefter any different than a doctor posting his patients medical records, because one works for the media? I don't buy it.
Imagine someone found out that one of the Presidential nominees had Stage 4 cancer or had a serious case of dementia. If the press were handed those medical records, I think we could all agree that in the run-up to the election, that it would be newsworthy and that the public should know about it.
Now, JPP is not running for President and his health is nowhere near as important as a Presidential nominee's health. But he is a public figure, he is a public athlete whose health is very importantly related to his job and status as a public figure.
Now, does that mean that his private medical records should be considered newsworthy for the press to publish? I personally don't think so, but that is what would be decided in Court.
There is a massive difference between a doctor and Schefter. The doctor is bound by doctor-patient confidentiality and by HIPAA. Schefter is bound by neither of those things. He is the press which has great freedoms in what they can publish.
As for a presidential candidate, id say that's one of the few scenarios where I can understand it. But athletes don't run this country and are civilians, they are subject to the same laws that I am.
My only sticking point would be calling Schefter "press":)
I think it's very unlikely there will be evidence which proves Schefter broke the law to get the medical record. A) I doubt Schefter is anywhere near that stupid (though I recognize that underestimating people's stupidity is a risky business), and b) if there was, the case would have been settled very fast.
1) If Schefter obtained the records illegally, as in he broke the law to get them by paying a worker to steal them, or by stealing them himself, then that is a completely separate charge both criminally and for a civil suit. That is not what is being alleged here. The only thing that matters is whether it was newsworthy what Schefter published.
2) Medical records are only protected under HIPAA by those who are bound to HIPAA regulations. If an agent of the hospital gave those records to Schefter, that person would be in violation of HIPAA, but not Schefter. THe privacy element of HIPAA is to prevent covered entities (e.g. insurance companies, medical care providers) from disclosing the medical records they use.
3) JPP is not a President, but he's not like us. He is a public figure and they have a much different right to privacy than we have. Now, his private medical records will likely be deemed by the Court to not be newsworthy and therefore a violation of his privacy. But that is the debate going on.