Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Types of Ex Parte Communications Are Permissible?
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) (42 U.S.C.A
' 1320d) was enacted by Congress in 1996 and took effect on April 14, 2003. Although it was originally intended to increase access to health care by expanding insurance portability and renewability, privacy issues evolved due to developing technology that provided easy access to health information. As a result, Congress added additional safeguards to the seemingly innocuous Act. Such procedural safeguards have spawned a debate on whether HIPAA preempts state privacy laws, and if so, whether it prohibits ex parte communications between a plaintiff's treating physicians and defense counsel. Therefore, it's important for counsel to be aware of the various state and federal court decisions on the subject and the issues raised by both plaintiffs and defendants in this amorphous area of law.
Ex parte communication with a plaintiff's treating physicians is a litigation tool that has long been utilized by defense counsel. Not surprisingly, plaintiffs have fought long and hard to prevent this type of informal discovery. Both plaintiffs and defendants have valid arguments for and against such ex parte communication. Plaintiffs, for instance, have privacy concerns regarding the dissemination of confidential medical information that is not relevant to the litigation. They also argue that ex parte communications undermine the confidentiality of the patient-physician relationship.
For defense counsel, the use of informal, ex parte interviews with a plaintiff's treating physician is an invaluable means of sizing up a physician's knowledge and opinions to determine whether it is actually necessary to depose him or her. Forcing defense counsel to conduct depositions of all the plaintiff's treating physicians would be costly and time-consuming. Also, in some states, plaintiffs waive the physician-patient privilege when plaintiffs file suits that put their medical conditions at issue. Since HIPAA was enacted, further debate has ensued regarding whether HIPAA preempts state laws allowing ex parte communication, and if so, whether HIPAA itself prohibits ex parte communication.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.