JPP suing Schefter, ESPN for posting medical records

[machine gun kelly]

But technically, and I am not a lawyer, I believe as far as HIPAA is concerned, it's on the hospital worker for disclosing the protected health information, not ESPN for broadcasting it.

I deal with HIPPA everyday, and you are correct in JPP can go after not only the employee of the hospital or doctor's office, but also the institution (office, or hospital). He may be able to convince a court or jury to have ESPN pay damages as well.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I deal with HIPPA everyday, and you are correct in JPP can go after not only the employee of the hospital or doctor's office, but also the institution (office, or hospital). He may be able to convince a court or jury to have ESPN pay damages as well.

 

So, my friend Google and I had a discussion, and I think that perhaps he is suing them not under HIPAA, but under straightforward "Invasion of Privacy" laws

Apparently these vary from state to state, but it might fall under either "Intrusion of Solitude" or "Public Disclosure of Private Facts"

 

1. Intrusion of Solitude

Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records.

 

3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

 

Schefter's and ESPN's defense would likely be that JPP's medical status is "of public concern" while JPP and his lawyer would claim that a reasonable person would find it offensive to have medical records made public and that the public concern with his injury does not extend to his private medical records.

 

If this is the case, I hope the judge slams Schefter and ESPN, hard, because I think otherwise it will be open season by journalists on celebrity's private medical records and that's just not right IMO.

[Chandler#81]

 

I haven't followed this story. Is there a confirmed hospital employee who provided the data? I ask, because there's a long history of 'investigative journalists' getting 'dirty' by finding the info via hook or crook.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

Good for JPP

 

I'm rooting for him

 

 

 

CBF

[bobobonators]

JPP isnt filing this by himself and playing lawyer. Im sure he obtained pretty good counsel and the suits determined the merits of his case.

[KD in CA]

 

So, my friend Google and I had a discussion, and I think that perhaps he is suing them not under HIPAA, but under straightforward "Invasion of Privacy" laws

Apparently these vary from state to state, but it might fall under either "Intrusion of Solitude" or "Public Disclosure of Private Facts"

 

1. Intrusion of Solitude

Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records.

 

3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

 

Schefter's and ESPN's defense would likely be that JPP's medical status is "of public concern" while JPP and his lawyer would claim that a reasonable person would find it offensive to have medical records made public and that the public concern with his injury does not extend to his private medical records.

 

If this is the case, I hope the judge slams Schefter and ESPN, hard, because I think otherwise it will be open season by journalists on celebrity's private medical records and that's just not right IMO.

 

In these wild west days of social media I strongly agree it's time for the courts to drop the hammer on someone.

[Gugny]

This was a no-brainer as soon as he did it.

 

I hope JPP gets enough money to make up for what he lost by losing his finger.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I hope he blows this thing up!

 

 

 

CBF

[boater]

This gon be good.

 

But ESPN will probably settle out of court, they're over a barrel here and have no defense. In that case: this gon be unknown

.

[Mr. WEO]

 

So, my friend Google and I had a discussion, and I think that perhaps he is suing them not under HIPAA, but under straightforward "Invasion of Privacy" laws

Apparently these vary from state to state, but it might fall under either "Intrusion of Solitude" or "Public Disclosure of Private Facts"

 

1. Intrusion of Solitude

Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records.

 

3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

 

Schefter's and ESPN's defense would likely be that JPP's medical status is "of public concern" while JPP and his lawyer would claim that a reasonable person would find it offensive to have medical records made public and that the public concern with his injury does not extend to his private medical records.

 

If this is the case, I hope the judge slams Schefter and ESPN, hard, because I think otherwise it will be open season by journalists on celebrity's private medical records and that's just not right IMO.

 

This is a civil suit, not criminal, so laws against invasion of privacy do not apply.

 

Scheffter did not "snoop through someone's private records"--he was givne them by a health care employee (who committed an obvious violation).

 

Also, this isn't "offensive material" if made public--it's a hand injury that everyone who can read or watch TV and follows the NFL already knew about. This numbnuts blew off his finger in a near-Darwinian success--it's not like he lost a testicle and Schefter was showing half-sack pics...

 

Finally, this is obviously of "public concern" given the massive press and social media surrounding the story about a public sport figure suffering a bizarre self inflicted injury. Fans of his NYG team and the public at large were all over this story and wanted details. Anyone who looks at JPP's hand forever going forward will see exactly what was in the report Schefter posted.

 

Juries are unpredictable and can be as dumb as your average JPP< but legally, it's not clear how he should lose a case like this.

 

What damages is JPP claiming he suffered?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[papazoid]

I haven't followed this story. Is there a confirmed hospital employee who provided the data? I ask, because there's a long history of 'investigative journalists' getting 'dirty' by finding the info via hook or crook.

 

Two hospital employees fired for leaking Jason Pierre-Paul's record after fireworks mishap

 

http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/two-hospital-employees-fired-leaking-jason-pierre-pauls-record-after-fireworks-mishap

[Nanker]

I hope he blows this thing up!

 

 

 

CBF

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is a civil suit, not criminal, so laws against invasion of privacy do not apply.

 

According to my friend Mr Google, "Invasion of Privacy" is a "Civil Tort" and "applies civil damages for violations of the law", which sounds to me exactly like it would apply.

Though I defer, of course, to the superior knowledge of some on this board.

[Mr. WEO]

 

According to my friend Mr Google, "Invasion of Privacy" is a "Civil Tort" and "applies civil damages for violations of the law", which sounds to me exactly like it would apply.

Though I defer, of course, to the superior knowledge of some on this board.

 

 

Neither of the points you included apply to this case. The facts don't seem to satisfy either of the criteria sets you included.

[Malazan]

I dislike Schefter, but that's not criteria for a frivolous lawsuit.

[Robert James]

 

This is a civil suit, not criminal, so laws against invasion of privacy do not apply.

 

Scheffter did not "snoop through someone's private records"--he was givne them by a health care employee (who committed an obvious violation).

 

Also, this isn't "offensive material" if made public--it's a hand injury that everyone who can read or watch TV and follows the NFL already knew about. This numbnuts blew off his finger in a near-Darwinian success--it's not like he lost a testicle and Schefter was showing half-sack pics...

 

Finally, this is obviously of "public concern" given the massive press and social media surrounding the story about a public sport figure suffering a bizarre self inflicted injury. Fans of his NYG team and the public at large were all over this story and wanted details. Anyone who looks at JPP's hand forever going forward will see exactly what was in the report Schefter posted.

 

Juries are unpredictable and can be as dumb as your average JPP< but legally, it's not clear how he should lose a case like this.

 

What damages is JPP claiming he suffered?

 

I practiced First Amendment law for about 20 years. I had a national practice and defended scores of suits for defamation and invasion of privacy against members of the press. The original poster's Google deductions were about right.

 

First, invasion of privacy by publication of private facts is a civil cause of action under the common law and/or by statute in almost every state, as is intrusion on seclusion.

 

Second, snooping or not, if Scheffter tweeted the private medical information, then he disseminated it widely enough to qualify as an act of publication. So there is certainly a colorable claim.

 

Third, the question of whether this disclosure was highly offensive would almost certainly go to a jury, and revealing private medical information is usually found to be highly offensive.

 

Fourth, your point about it not being private because people already knew about the injury may indeed be a complete defense, depending on exactly what Scheffter disclosed and what was already public.

 

Fifth, Your point about the information being of legitimate public concern is certainly one that the defense lawyer would make. However, that would turn on the legal status of JPP as a public figure, and it is very possible an judge would find he is not one. Public figure status usually depends on whether the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into a public controversy by speaking out, and public controversies usually must concern a matter of genuine public importance, the outcome of which affects many people beyond those involved in the controversy. (Waldbaum) In JPP's favor, there is an old decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that found a member of the Philadelphia Eagles to be a public figure for First Amendment purposes. (Chuy)

 

Aside: In the 90's I defended a Miami radio station in a suit by Dolphins linebacker and notorious Buffalo Bills hater Bryan Cox. Cox told a reporter for the station to "suck my d***" during a live interview following a loss. The following day, a shock jock for the station made a satirical, but very straight-faced report that Bryan Cox had bravely come out as gay. We won the defamation suit (it claimed being called gay was defamatory) without a determination on Cox's public figure status.)

 

Sixth, yes juries are unpredictable, but they often love local sports heroes. I would be surprised if JPP didn't sue in NJ or NY.

 

Sixth, plaintiffs in these types of cases usually claim, and if they win can recover, damages for emotional distress: the emotional harm of having aspects of their private life made public. Suffering horrific and disfiguring injuries would probably qualify. How strong that claim would be would again depend on the content and timing of the offending tweet compared to what other publicity the injury received.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Robert James

[tombstone56]

GOOD ,, ABOUT TIME THESE SO CALLED MEDIA TYPES ARE NOW THE STORY!

[Mr. WEO]

 

I practiced First Amendment law for about 20 years. I had a national practice and defended scores of suits for defamation and invasion of privacy against members of the press. The original poster's Google deductions were about right.

 

First, invasion of privacy by publication of private facts is a civil cause of action under the common law and/or by statute in almost every state, as is intrusion on seclusion.

 

Second, snooping or not, if Scheffter tweeted the private medical information, then he disseminated it widely enough to qualify as an act of publication. So there is certainly a colorable claim.

 

Third, the question of whether this disclosure was highly offensive would almost certainly go to a jury, and revealing private medical information is usually found to be highly offensive.

 

Fourth, your point about it not being private because people already knew about the injury may indeed be a complete defense, depending on exactly what Scheffter disclosed and what was already public.

 

Fifth, Your point about the information being of legitimate public concern is certainly one that the defense lawyer would make. However, that would turn on the legal status of JPP as a public figure, and it is very possible an judge would find he is not one. Public figure status usually depends on whether the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into a public controversy by speaking out, and public controversies usually must concern a matter of genuine public importance, the outcome of which affects many people beyond those involved in the controversy. (Waldbaum) In JPP's favor, there is an old decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that found a member of the Philadelphia Eagles to be a public figure for First Amendment purposes. (Chuy)

 

Aside: In the 90's I defended a Miami radio station in a suit by Dolphins linebacker and notorious Buffalo Bills hater Bryan Cox. Cox told a reporter for the station to "suck my d***" during a live interview following a loss. The following day, a shock jock for the station made a satirical, but very straight-faced report that Bryan Cox had bravely come out as gay. We won the defamation suit (it claimed being called gay was defamatory) without a determination on Cox's public figure status.)

 

Sixth, yes juries are unpredictable, but they often love local sports heroes. I would be surprised if JPP didn't sue in NJ or NY.

 

Sixth, plaintiffs in these types of cases usually claim, and if they win can recover, damages for emotional distress: the emotional harm of having aspects of their private life made public. Suffering horrific and disfiguring injuries would probably qualify. How strong that claim would be would again depend on the content and timing of the offending tweet compared to what other publicity the injury received.

 

 

Thanks for your info!

 

Your case against Cox sounded like slander as the radio guy stated something he likely knew was not true. In this case, the injury suffered by JPP (by his own "hand") was well known publicly before Schefter showed the picture and recprds. Any emotional distress JPP was suffering or suffered was already in progress---and was self inflicted (I couldn't resist) embarrassment.

 

The guy blew his hand apart. Schefter later showed medical records of his blown up hand, and a report of the blown up hand. Anyone who sees JPP sees this injury--it is not hidden.

 

Multiple pictures were psted in the following months by others--including JPP.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

I practiced First Amendment law for about 20 years. I had a national practice and defended scores of suits for defamation and invasion of privacy against members of the press. The original poster's Google deductions were about right.

 

First, invasion of privacy by publication of private facts is a civil cause of action under the common law and/or by statute in almost every state, as is intrusion on seclusion.

 

Second, snooping or not, if Scheffter tweeted the private medical information, then he disseminated it widely enough to qualify as an act of publication. So there is certainly a colorable claim.

 

Third, the question of whether this disclosure was highly offensive would almost certainly go to a jury, and revealing private medical information is usually found to be highly offensive.

 

Fourth, your point about it not being private because people already knew about the injury may indeed be a complete defense, depending on exactly what Scheffter disclosed and what was already public.

 

Fifth, Your point about the information being of legitimate public concern is certainly one that the defense lawyer would make. However, that would turn on the legal status of JPP as a public figure, and it is very possible an judge would find he is not one. Public figure status usually depends on whether the plaintiff had voluntarily entered into a public controversy by speaking out, and public controversies usually must concern a matter of genuine public importance, the outcome of which affects many people beyond those involved in the controversy. (Waldbaum) In JPP's favor, there is an old decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that found a member of the Philadelphia Eagles to be a public figure for First Amendment purposes. (Chuy)

 

Great stuff, Thanks!

 

As I recall, at the time, ESPN followed up Schefter's tweets by publishing the photos of JPP's medical records themselves, which included private medical information about another individual. Can the publication of that individual's medical records (who is not a public figure nor of legitimate public concern) be brought up in JPP's suit, or would that individual have to file his own lawsuit?

 

Also as I recall, at the time (4 days post-incident) it was widely reported that JPP had injured his hand and how, but he was maintaining seclusion, not even accepting meetings with Giants representatives, and had not himself published any photos of his hand or issued any statements about the medical procedures he underwent. I don't know what bearing this would have upon the question of "legitimate public concern".

 

Personally, I think it's a horrible precedent to allow members of the media to publish private medical records with impunity. Even if JPP later published pictures of his healed hand and his healed hand can be seen by everyone who sees him today, I don't see how that's reason to allow publication of private medical records documenting the healing process and the treatment that produced what we see today. Especially after a diagnosis or injury, I think an individual deserves time to process the information and come to terms with it privately.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Hopeful

[jimmy10]

 

Personally, I think it's a horrible precedent to allow members of the media to publish private medical records with impunity.

 

Worse, hospital employees with access to protected health information are then incentivized to snap a picture of a celebrity's medical chart or O.R. schedule and sell it to TMZ or ESPN or whatever vulture media outfit has interest (if I recall, part of what was leaked in JPP's case was the OR schedule showing his name and the procedure he was to have). And there are plenty of people who don't make decent money that have access to that information, it's not just the well-paid caregivers. There's a reason hospitals and medical centers take HIPAA training and compliance very, very seriously.