Cops Used Fake Patient Ids To Buy Medical Pot;

[+RevThad]

If I post my MDCH paperwork on the post office bulletin board and you read it, do we both get prosecuted or just me?

A patient has the right to waive their protection of confidentiality.

[Wayne'sWorld]

But if I haven't signed a waiver? Do dispensaries require members to sign waivers? I worked at a state hospital for MDCH and patients always had to have a signed waiver. Is there an exception to this in the MMMP?

[DenturesLost]

A plain English reading of this section says to me that anybody that finds, confiscates, steals or otherwise happens upon the identifying patient information that was submitted to the MDCH and then leaks or disseminates that to anybody else is in violation of the act unless it is the MDCH "leaking" just enough to authenticate the card for a law enforcement officer. Can you explain to me how this is not the case?

 

If that is not the case, then does 6h(1) have any meaning whatsoever?

 

To simplify this and remove it from the details of this case and the baggage of previous arguments, what would happen if a cop stopped Bill Schuette, smelled cannabis in the car, checked his patient card, then let him go according to the law, but then called up the Freep to expose him? Is there any argument whatsoever to put a misdemeanor on the cop?

The cop checked his card? As in ran the number on LEIN? If so then exposing info that was gleaned from LEIN is a crime in and of itself. But that's neither here nor there I suppose.

 

As far as 6h1-- I am of the position that it is there to set-the-table for 6h2 and 6h3. To say that it is confidential is one thing. To make the leap that disclosure by anyone is a violation, is another. The fact is that disclosure of confidential information is not always considered a violation of confidence is it? If it is my info then I can disclose it, right? 6h1 does not say the info is not to be disclosed by anyone. Furthermore, the act doesn't define confidential. So that means we use everyday usage of the word and not a specific legal deifnition. Confidential doesn't mean top secret. Confidential info has less protection than top secret info. Confidential info can be revealed by the person to whom the confidence is owed. Confidential info can be used as evidence in court as long as it meets with certain guidelines. To suggest that no one can reveal the confidential info is to read more into the act than is there.

[jtgeme]

But if I haven't signed a waiver? Do dispensaries require members to sign waivers? I worked at a state hospital for MDCH and patients always had to have a signed waiver. Is there an exception to this in the MMMP?

 

There is an implied waiver.

 

If you take your confidential and post where the public (or anybody else) could see, it would be considered a waiver.

 

I would say that a patient entering into a dispensary and signing a ledger book could be some sort of waiver to some extent, but I'm not sure. As a patient you are voluntarily entering and signing the book...or is it staff that is writing in the book? That could be a difference I think. I dunno....

 

I think its important to remember the context of where all this is happening...the prosecutor is asserting that Clinical Relief was operating outside the law, and to prove that, they need to produce evidence that was seized in the course of the investigation. Since the prosecutor is arguing that CR is invalid/illegal, there can be no protection.

 

On the other side, the defense is stating that CR was operating as a legitimate business, so confidentiality should remain in place.

 

If a Doctor's office is running an insurance fraud scheme, using patients records to increase billings to insurance companies, those patient records would be confidential, and there would certainly be no patient waiver in such a case because the patients name, ailment, etc is all irrelevant to the underlying charges. But the patients records would be necessary to the prosecution.

 

Here, I think we have a situation where the patient records are not irrelevant to the charges; but their existence is relevant. Its my understanding that the prosecutor is stating that CR is operating illegally because a caregiver can 5 patients, and the caregivers at CR had more than 5 each - or something to that effect. So the patient records are relevant to that fact that the caregivers at CR were not attached to some of the patients seeking meds. So I can see a relevant reason for entering the patient records - but not the information contained in those records.

 

Its a sticky mess, and because the law is new, and undefined, its difficult to follow. I think the judge handled it appropriately, and I don't think that the prosecutor, clinical relief, or anybody else wold be liable for violating the confidential provision of the statute.

[DenturesLost]

There is an implied waiver.

 

What he said.

 

I would add that a dispensary is not a clinic such that HIPPA would apply. I would also point out that info given by the pt to the dispensary is not confidential under the MMA. The act states that info submitted to the MDCH is confidential. Taking bits and pieces of that info and using it elsewhere isn't the same thing (eg: your name is info submitted to the MDCH but your name isn't confidential when used elsewhere). This is where people are going wrong. You are assuming that there HAS to be a protection of that information at the dispensary so you try and force it to fit in the nondisclosure requirements of the act. It doesn't make sense and it isn't going to happen.

 

Whether you have a confidentiality interest elsewhere in the law or as a civil rememdy for disclosure is a different issue and maybe you do. But you don't have a confidentiality interest under the MMA.

[+RevThad]

Interestingly, from the exact case we are discussing...

 

"Police ordered everyone to the ground. They arrested co-owners and workers, and seized four pounds of marijuana, nine plants, money from the safe and two cash registers, the handgun, and a ledger with names of people who bought medical marijuana.

 

Longo issued a protective order that prevents the ledger and its contents -- patient names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of visits -- from becoming part of the public record.

 

Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand argued the ledger holds the names of customers, not patients. However, Longo said, “They are patients, or potential patients, of a physician and that information is protectable.”

[peanutbutter]

What he said.

 

I would add that a dispensary is not a clinic such that HIPPA would apply. I would also point out that info given by the pt to the dispensary is not confidential under the MMA. The act states that info submitted to the MDCH is confidential. Taking bits and pieces of that info and using it elsewhere isn't the same thing (eg: your name is info submitted to the MDCH but your name isn't confidential when used elsewhere). This is where people are going wrong. You are assuming that there HAS to be a protection of that information at the dispensary so you try and force it to fit in the nondisclosure requirements of the act. It doesn't make sense and it isn't going to happen.

 

Whether you have a confidentiality interest elsewhere in the law or as a civil rememdy for disclosure is a different issue and maybe you do. But you don't have a confidentiality interest under the MMA.

 

A copy of the information that was submitted to the MDCH (a copy of the application and all supporting information) would be covered. Would you agree?

 

Yes .. I'm pushing the edge by trying to fit the ledger book into the section.

[peanutbutter]

Stipulated: Let the record reflect that peanutbutter is a pain in the ***.

[+RevThad]

A copy of the information that was submitted to the MDCH (a copy of the application and all supporting information) would be covered. Would you agree?

 

Yes .. I'm pushing the edge by trying to fit the ledger book into the section.

No worries, it seems that Judge Longo is doing the same thing...

 

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/11/05/news/doc4cd4bcfd0b741636898022.txt?viewmode=2

"Longo issued a protective order that prevents the ledger and its contents -- patient names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of visits -- from becoming part of the public record.

 

Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand argued the ledger holds the names of customers, not patients. However, Longo said, “They are patients, or potential patients, of a physician and that information is protectable.”"

[bobandtorey]

Interestingly, from the exact case we are discussing...

 

"Police ordered everyone to the ground. They arrested co-owners and workers, and seized four pounds of marijuana, nine plants, money from the safe and two cash registers, the handgun, and a ledger with names of people who bought medical marijuana.

 

Longo issued a protective order that prevents the ledger and its contents -- patient names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of visits -- from becoming part of the public record.

 

Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand argued the ledger holds the names of customers, not patients. However, Longo said, “They are patients, or potential patients, of a physician and that information is protectable.”

 

They arrested co-owners and workers, but how many people was that if it was say 5 caregiver then 4 lb's is not to much it's likely they were over the limt

[peanutbutter]

No worries, it seems that Judge Longo is doing the same thing...

 

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/11/05/news/doc4cd4bcfd0b741636898022.txt?viewmode=2

"Longo issued a protective order that prevents the ledger and its contents -- patient names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of visits -- from becoming part of the public record.

 

Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand argued the ledger holds the names of customers, not patients. However, Longo said, “They are patients, or potential patients, of a physician and that information is protectable.”"

 

Thanks Rev.

 

I was there. I gathered the impression that the judge was thinking about HIPPA. Which got him to the point of what he did to protect the information.

 

"This notation of 'doc app.' Does that mean 'doctors appointment?'"

PA Beth Hand "yes it does."

"That's all I need to know."

[peanutbutter]

Oh yes .. the judge extended the same protections to any documents with identifying information on it.

[lawyercaregiver]

Rashore:

I believe the ledger was list of patients that had checked in on certain days for certain reasons, or maybe it was an appointment book concerning future appointments. I am not sure, but I THINK its more of a daily log of events.

 

PB:

A list of names is not confidential, a list of patients (any patient) should be.

 

I thought the prosecutor was off her rocker when she said it wasn't confidential. While I agree with her statement that anybody, in any public vantage point could see anybody walking in, the ledger appears to go WAY further than that and any argument to the contrary was weak at best. I give her credit for making the argument, that's her job - regardless of how well or poorly I believe she does it.

 

PB, so your complaint is that the list of patients at the ledger is being used in court? I agree with Dentures that "the list" is THE LIST held by the MDCH- not some other list.

 

However, you don't need the MMMA because a list of patients checking in to a dispensary, a pharmacy, or a physician should be protected by HIPPAA.

 

Seems they can still do it in-camera (i.e. only the judge and lawyers see the list in chambers) even if it is not legitimately "public" information so this whole confidentiality is pointless from a legal defense of the victims (i.e. the arrested dispensary operators) standpoint.

[peanutbutter]

PB, so your complaint is that the list of patients at the ledger is being used in court? I agree with Dentures that "the list" is THE LIST held by the MDCH- not some other list.

 

It's not the literal physical computer with it's files. It's the information inside the file. Each item. Even the names. Even one single name.

 

And the information is protected before it arrives there. The application is covered in the law.

 

My complaint is that there seems to have been violations of criminal law by officials of Oakland county.

 

However, you don't need the MMMA because a list of patients checking in to a dispensary, a pharmacy, or a physician should be protected by HIPPAA.

 

Seems they can still do it in-camera (i.e. only the judge and lawyers see the list in chambers) even if it is not legitimately "public" information so this whole confidentiality is pointless from a legal defense of the victims (i.e. the arrested dispensary operators) standpoint.

 

As I said, I think the judge considered HIPPA more than MMMA on this topic. He may not have taken the MMMA into consideration at all.

 

I believe the MMMA says these officials go to jail.

[DenturesLost]

It's not the literal physical computer with it's files. It's the information inside the file. Each item. Even the names. Even one single name.

 

And the information is protected before it arrives there. The application is covered in the law.

 

No it isn't. The law uses the pass tense of the verb submit. That means it is protected after it is submitted.

 

The names are protected relative to the other information in the application. The names themselves are not protected as just discrete pieces of information. If they are then the next time the UPS man comes to the door and says "John Doe" then I suppose he just broke the law for disclosing your info? The act doesn't have nearly as broad a sweep and you want it to and are suggesting it has.

[peanutbutter]

No it isn't. The law uses the pass tense of the verb submit. That means it is protected after it is submitted.

 

I believe that would be the day that the application was placed into the trust of the US mail. Works for the IRS ..

 

Some would claim the moment that it arrived at the MDCH. That would be received, not submitted.

 

For safety we have concluded to count from the moment the MDCH deposits the check.

 

The names are protected relative to the other information in the application. The names themselves are not protected as just discrete pieces of information. If they are then the next time the UPS man comes to the door and says "John Doe" then I suppose he just broke the law for disclosing your info? The act doesn't have nearly as broad a sweep and you want it to and are suggesting it has.

 

"John Doe" is OK

"John Doe is a registered medical marihuana patient" is not OK

 

I think we are close to the same page on that.

[DenturesLost]

I believe that would be the day that the application was placed into the trust of the US mail. Works for the IRS ..

 

Some would claim the moment that it arrived at the MDCH. That would be received, not submitted.

 

For safety we have concluded to count from the moment the MDCH deposits the check.

 

 

 

"John Doe" is OK

"John Doe is a registered medical marihuana patient" is not OK

 

I think we are close to the same page on that.

 

Well that is one thing I can agree on. I think it is arguable that submitted means when you dropped it in the mail. But not before that.

 

 

If John Doe tells Joe UPS that John Doe is a mm pt and then Joe UPS repeats it to John's neighbor there is no violation of confidentiality. Confidentiality does not extend like that as 1. it was waived and 2. Joe UPS doesn't owe John a duty of care in regard to confidentiality. That's the point. The statute does not impose that duty on John UPS, that's what you're missing. Furthermore, even if the statute wanted to it couldn't because it would be a clear violation of John's 1st amendment rights. But it doesn't so that discussion isn't necessary. This isn't nazi germany. We can repeat what our neighbors tell us.

[peanutbutter]

If John Doe tells Joe UPS that John Doe is a mm pt and then Joe UPS repeats it to John's neighbor there is no violation of confidentiality. Confidentiality does not extend like that as 1. it was waived and 2. Joe UPS doesn't owe John a duty of care in regard to confidentiality. That's the point. The statute does not impose that duty on John UPS, that's what you're missing. Furthermore, even if the statute wanted to it couldn't because it would be a clear violation of John's 1st amendment rights. But it doesn't so that discussion isn't necessary. This isn't nazi germany. We can repeat what our neighbors tell us.

 

I don't think this is a crime that a civilian can commit.

 

re info -> #1 -> #2

 

That is the only way a employee of a local unit of government could commit this crime.

[peanutbutter]

re info -> #1 -> #2

 

That is the only way a employee of a local unit of government could commit this crime.

 

I'll expound a little.

 

I did overlook the element of waiver.

 

I'm watching the information flow. app -> MDCH -> MDCH data entry -> ID card then, for some, -> police officer -> PA -> etc.

 

It's the information age

 

There is a clear time that the information is covered yet is not in the MDCH file.

 

At a minimum, the employee of the local unit of government would have to get the information from somewhere and then divulge the information.

 

The clearest example would involve the MDCH handing the information to that local governmental unit employee.

[will2568]

The fake cards are really a non-issue.

Forgery of a public record is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 14 years under Michigan law. Law enforcement officers are not above the law. Unlawful possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and/or up to $2000. Given the disparity in maximum penalties for these two crimes, I would say the forgery is THE MOST SERIOUS AND GRIEVOUS CONFESSED CRIME in this case. To say that the forged patient ID cards is a non-issue in a county where the executive branch has publicly described their policy against medicinal use of marijuana as a "crusade" reveals an astounding ignorance of the concept of justice.

 

This "ends justify the means" mentality of law enforcement that results in officers committing felonies to arrest innocent citizens for alleged misdemeanors must be swiftly and severely punished to the full extent of both criminal and civil law. Willful and deliberate miscarriage of justice by our public servants must not be tolerated.

[mizerman]

i know when the judge said know one is to release the names i was thinking my name is on the patient records.

So is my wife's.

[mizerman]

Peanut Butter in 2012!

 

 

 

 

 

Mizerman