JPP severely injures hand in fireworks accident
- Thread starter Cotton
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,809
Yeah, watch Schefter say his account was hacked or something.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 122,809
Damn.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 27,180
Definitely. That's f'd up. ESPN went waaaaay over the line with this.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,216
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
why you sonofaHe already is.
GShock
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,393
Naaaah. ESPN is and will be fine.
Now the hospital that failed to secure the info...not so much.
As an aside
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 52,949
I don't know that ESPN would fall under the authority of HIPAA. They aren't a health care company or a company associated with a health care company.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,216
It's them posting it on a social media website that I think will get them in trouble. The hospital is without a doubt in deep shit, but I'm pretty sure it's against the law to post someone's medical records regardless of how you came across them.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,216
ESPN defends publication of Pierre-Paul’s medical record
Posted by Mike Florio on July 9, 2015, 7:33 AM EDT
Plenty of people have concerns about ESPN’s decision to publish an image of Jason Pierre-Paul’s medical records. ESPN claims it has no such concerns.
“HIPAA does not apply to news organizations,” ESPN said in a statement issued Wednesday night, via CNN.
Regardless of whether the federal law known as HIPAA extends beyond health-care providers (it doesn’t), state privacy laws could apply. Likewise, the court of public opinion always has jurisdiction, and many remain confused by the unnecessary effort to validate an accurate report that no one would have seriously doubted.
ESPN didn’t shy away from publishing the medical record beyond Twitter; it also showed up on SportsCenter last night. (The 7:00 a.m. ET SportsCenter on ESPN2 did not include an image of the record, which perhaps says much more than the seven-word statement issued to ESPN.)
The issue extends beyond the public figure at the heart of the case. The record as posted on Twitter also includes information regarding a 65-year-old male patient with the initials “FC,” whose procedure began at 3:09 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Related information about the procedure (“HAND MAJOR, HAND MICRO, ELBOW RETRACT”) appears above the information about Pierre-Paul’s procedure.
While the other patient isn’t identified beyond the initials, that information definitely should have been redacted before the medical report was displayed to the public.
Absent redaction, it’s all the more reason that ESPN should have simply reported that the finger was being amputated, without showing the medical record. No one was going to dispute the report; instead, a slew of confirming reports would have quickly followed. Besides, if anyone had doubted the report upon its release, ESPN eventually would have been proven right.
Instead, ESPN is now dealing with a situation far stickier than random folks on Twitter questioning the accuracy of the initial report of an amputation.
Posted by Mike Florio on July 9, 2015, 7:33 AM EDT
Plenty of people have concerns about ESPN’s decision to publish an image of Jason Pierre-Paul’s medical records. ESPN claims it has no such concerns.
“HIPAA does not apply to news organizations,” ESPN said in a statement issued Wednesday night, via CNN.
Regardless of whether the federal law known as HIPAA extends beyond health-care providers (it doesn’t), state privacy laws could apply. Likewise, the court of public opinion always has jurisdiction, and many remain confused by the unnecessary effort to validate an accurate report that no one would have seriously doubted.
ESPN didn’t shy away from publishing the medical record beyond Twitter; it also showed up on SportsCenter last night. (The 7:00 a.m. ET SportsCenter on ESPN2 did not include an image of the record, which perhaps says much more than the seven-word statement issued to ESPN.)
The issue extends beyond the public figure at the heart of the case. The record as posted on Twitter also includes information regarding a 65-year-old male patient with the initials “FC,” whose procedure began at 3:09 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Related information about the procedure (“HAND MAJOR, HAND MICRO, ELBOW RETRACT”) appears above the information about Pierre-Paul’s procedure.
While the other patient isn’t identified beyond the initials, that information definitely should have been redacted before the medical report was displayed to the public.
Absent redaction, it’s all the more reason that ESPN should have simply reported that the finger was being amputated, without showing the medical record. No one was going to dispute the report; instead, a slew of confirming reports would have quickly followed. Besides, if anyone had doubted the report upon its release, ESPN eventually would have been proven right.
Instead, ESPN is now dealing with a situation far stickier than random folks on Twitter questioning the accuracy of the initial report of an amputation.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 37,845
It was definitely irresponsible and unnecessary for espn to publish the actual report.
They could easily have just reported the news from the report without making the actual report public and accomplished the exact same thing.
They could easily have just reported the news from the report without making the actual report public and accomplished the exact same thing.
D
Deuce
Guest
It's not a HIPPA violation against ESPN. It's whomever at the hospital that leaked it to them.