The official ‘Tory Lanez vs Megan Thee Stallion’ trial thread.
- Thread starter Danny Ocean
- Start date
Keep_It_Hip_Hop_Fam
All Star
desjardins
Superstar
Every time new testimony comes out I flip flop on this shyt 
HARLEM AL
Your broad loves me.....
That shyt went over your head.....
Was she really shot? I’ll ask again
Source: Thinkstock
Share on Twitter
By Elizabeth Snell
September 13, 2017 - HIPAA rules are meant to protect patient information, but what happens when there is a law enforcement investigation? Are police officers allowed to demand PHI without a warrant?
That issue was brought forth in August 2017 when video was released of a Salt Lake City, Utah nurse refusing to draw blood from an unconscious patient and give it to a detective. The University of Utah nurse, Alex Wubbels, said she could not draw blood unless the patient was under arrest, the patient consented, or that investigators had a warrant.
Salt Lake City Police Department Detective Jeff Payne claimed Wubbels was impeding an investigation and placed her in handcuffs.
Under HIPAA, covered entities may disclose PHI under the following circumstances in relation to law enforcement investigations:
READ MORE: How HIPAA Regulations Apply to Key Patient Data Access Situations
In the Utah case though, the patient was not suspected of having committed a crime.
With judicial and administrative proceedings, the PHI disclosure process is fairly similar.
“Covered entities may disclose protected health information in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the request for the information is through an order from a court or administrative tribunal,” the Privacy Rule states. “Such information may also be disclosed in response to a subpoena or other lawful process if certain assurances regarding notice to the individual or a protective order are provided.”
However, if state law requires covered entities to follow a police officer’s directive, then it must comply.
For example, North Carolina only requires that a blood draw be done safely – not that a provider demand a warrant.
READ MORE: Ensuring Security, Access to Protected Health Information (PHI)
“In North Carolina, a nurse must comply with the directive of a law enforcement officer to withdraw blood from an unconscious patient, unless the nurse determines that the withdrawal will endanger the safety of either the nurse or the patient,” explained a Womble Carylyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC blog post.
“If the courts later determine that the withdrawal was unjustified or illegal, the results of the blood draw may be excluded from evidence,” the authors continued. “However, the nurse, hospital and/or practice that employs the nurse may not be held criminally or civilly liable for following the officer’s directive, complying with the statute, and withdrawing blood using the applicable standard of care.”
Covered entities must ensure that employees at all levels are trained on the specific requirements with regard to PHI disclosure. Varied state law, along with federal regulation, should be considered as providers determine their policies and procedures. From there, staff members need to know what is required.
Utah-based McKay Dee Hospital, which is owned by Intermountain Healthcare, told the Standard-Examiner that its own internal policies have not changed following the University of Utah incident. Intermountain Healthcare maintained that its policy is based on federal law.
“[Policy] requires law enforcement to have a patient in custody, a warrant or a patient’s permission before we can provide any information from a blood draw or any other protected health information,” Intermountain said in a statement. “Without the patient’s permission — which can be expressed verbally or in writing — or a legal document, our caregivers will not provide lab samples or protected health information.”
READ MORE: Memorial Hermann Agrees to $2.4M OCR HIPAA Settlement
It can be tricky for providers to determine when they are compromising patient privacy and when they are adhering to law enforcement requests. HIPAA regulations work by finding the right balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring information can flow freely.
Covered entities and their business associates must review federal and state regulations in regards to permissible PHI disclosure and when patient information can be shared with other entities.
“The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority purposes,” the Privacy Rule states. “Specific conditions or limitations apply to each public interest purpose, striking the balance between the individual privacy interest and the public interest need for this information.”
How HIPAA Rules Apply with Law Enforcement Investigations
A recent case in Utah brought forth concerns in how HIPAA rules actually apply when it comes to law enforcement investigations.
Source: Thinkstock
Share on Twitter
September 13, 2017 - HIPAA rules are meant to protect patient information, but what happens when there is a law enforcement investigation? Are police officers allowed to demand PHI without a warrant?
That issue was brought forth in August 2017 when video was released of a Salt Lake City, Utah nurse refusing to draw blood from an unconscious patient and give it to a detective. The University of Utah nurse, Alex Wubbels, said she could not draw blood unless the patient was under arrest, the patient consented, or that investigators had a warrant.
Salt Lake City Police Department Detective Jeff Payne claimed Wubbels was impeding an investigation and placed her in handcuffs.
Under HIPAA, covered entities may disclose PHI under the following circumstances in relation to law enforcement investigations:
- As required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests
- To identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person
- In response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime
- To alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death
- When a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises
- By a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime
READ MORE: How HIPAA Regulations Apply to Key Patient Data Access Situations
In the Utah case though, the patient was not suspected of having committed a crime.
With judicial and administrative proceedings, the PHI disclosure process is fairly similar.
“Covered entities may disclose protected health information in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the request for the information is through an order from a court or administrative tribunal,” the Privacy Rule states. “Such information may also be disclosed in response to a subpoena or other lawful process if certain assurances regarding notice to the individual or a protective order are provided.”
However, if state law requires covered entities to follow a police officer’s directive, then it must comply.
For example, North Carolina only requires that a blood draw be done safely – not that a provider demand a warrant.
READ MORE: Ensuring Security, Access to Protected Health Information (PHI)
“In North Carolina, a nurse must comply with the directive of a law enforcement officer to withdraw blood from an unconscious patient, unless the nurse determines that the withdrawal will endanger the safety of either the nurse or the patient,” explained a Womble Carylyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC blog post.
“If the courts later determine that the withdrawal was unjustified or illegal, the results of the blood draw may be excluded from evidence,” the authors continued. “However, the nurse, hospital and/or practice that employs the nurse may not be held criminally or civilly liable for following the officer’s directive, complying with the statute, and withdrawing blood using the applicable standard of care.”
Covered entities must ensure that employees at all levels are trained on the specific requirements with regard to PHI disclosure. Varied state law, along with federal regulation, should be considered as providers determine their policies and procedures. From there, staff members need to know what is required.
Utah-based McKay Dee Hospital, which is owned by Intermountain Healthcare, told the Standard-Examiner that its own internal policies have not changed following the University of Utah incident. Intermountain Healthcare maintained that its policy is based on federal law.
“[Policy] requires law enforcement to have a patient in custody, a warrant or a patient’s permission before we can provide any information from a blood draw or any other protected health information,” Intermountain said in a statement. “Without the patient’s permission — which can be expressed verbally or in writing — or a legal document, our caregivers will not provide lab samples or protected health information.”
READ MORE: Memorial Hermann Agrees to $2.4M OCR HIPAA Settlement
It can be tricky for providers to determine when they are compromising patient privacy and when they are adhering to law enforcement requests. HIPAA regulations work by finding the right balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring information can flow freely.
Covered entities and their business associates must review federal and state regulations in regards to permissible PHI disclosure and when patient information can be shared with other entities.
“The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority purposes,” the Privacy Rule states. “Specific conditions or limitations apply to each public interest purpose, striking the balance between the individual privacy interest and the public interest need for this information.”
Meg Vs Jade Cargill
Make it happen Tony!
Meg & Jade vs Tory & Bow WoW. The Amazonians vs Short gang. Cage Match
Meg should have kept it real and said both them mafukkas was shooting from the jump 
We’ve come full circle. Back to she never even got shot 
Whatever it will be, you will have one side on this site jumping for joy and the other seething with rage, and BOTH will be equally pathetic for being that zealously involved in this whole matter as if it is personal to them.
Meg should have kept it real and said both them mafukkas was shooting from the jump
She should've been honest about everything from the beginning, but one's vision is always better in hindsight. She probably thought she had to portray herself as the "perfect victim" to be believed. But in leaving out details that presented her in a less favorable light, she ended up creating the very situation she wanted to avoid with people questioning her credibility.
Moral of the story, always tell the truth. lol
As someone who thinks tory pulled that trigger I think he avoids that charge. I just haven’t seen anything concrete to where the jury will be like yea he 100% did it. It’s too many lies and holes in this mess from all parties involved.
Meg lied about things she didn’t even have to lie about and that might hurt her. Even though the lies have nothing to do with being shot constant lies can leave doubt in the their mind.
He did that shyt though…
murksiderock
Superstar
Somebody catch me up, I haven't followed this. When is closing arguments?
It was discovered there were two shooters?
It was discovered there were two shooters?
Meg didn’t lie about anything in court, and her story never wavered about who shot her and the immediate details surrounding it.As someone who thinks tory pulled that trigger I think he avoids that charge. I just haven’t seen anything concrete to where the jury will be like yea he 100% did it. It’s too many lies and holes in this mess from all parties involved.
Meg lied about things she didn’t even have to lie about and that might hurt her. Even though the lies have nothing to do with being shot constant lies can leave doubt in the their mind.
He did that shyt though…
The Jury doesn’t or at least shouldn’t have the perspective of the months/years of speculation we have.
Nothing said or presented in court has disproven megs account of events.
Lol I noticed that. Some of us are too old and/or have work to be staying up for back and forth.