Jump to content

Confidentiality


Recommended Posts

I have held a patient & caregiver card for almost 4 yrs now... I have 5 children 6yrs-17yrs... I also care for my gpa who is on hospice... last summer my step-son had a diving accident & broke his neck.. he is paralyzed & is on a ventilator... bcuz of the vent u of m hospital requires 2 people to be trained in cpr, trach cpr, & vent maintenance... the social worker at the hospital has deemed me an unfit caregiver bcuz she does not think I can function properly enough to take care of my son... I am on no prescription meds... she said she needs signed documents from the doctor saying whether or not I can give appropriate care... when I told her I would not provide that type of info, she summoned the state to take custody bcuz "2 appropriate caregivers have not been trained before my step-son's discharge date"...

 

My question is now we have to fight the state for custody back & is this something the social worker can do?? Can we fight this?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we did get an attorney-pre lim on tues... she gave no reasons.. just the fact that I have a med marij card I need to prove I can give proper care.. I refused to contact the issuing doctor for him to provide the social worker w a statement.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she then told the social worker of the hospital... don't really know how all of this has transited between the two-which is why we have gotten an atty & going to court..  but I need to know if holding a card is grounds for the state to fight us in terms of us getting custody back..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she then told the social worker of the hospital... don't really know how all of this has transited between the two-which is why we have gotten an atty & going to court..  but I need to know if holding a card is grounds for the state to fight us in terms of us getting custody back..

 

 

It alone is not (should not and is not supposed to be).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

 

333.26424

 

Sec. 4. (3) c. A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

Edited by Wild Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds like (your husband *cough*) and the ronald mcdonald manager committed misdemeanors :P

but since you (i assume) gave permission to your husband to disclose said info, hes in the clear.

the ronald mcdonald manager is not...

 

 

"individual names and other identifying information on the list are confidential "

(4) A person, including an employee, contractor, or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

this is from LARA's MMMA rules

http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/AdminCode/1303_2013-105LR_AdminCode.pdf

 

R 333.121 Confidentiality.
Rule 21. (1) Except as provided in subrules (2) and (3) of this rule, Michigan medical
marihuana program information shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure in any
form or manner. Program information includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) Applications and supporting information submitted by qualifying patients.
(b) Information related to a qualifying patient's primary caregiver.
© Names and other identifying information of registry identification cardholders.
(d) Names and other identifying information of pending applicants and their primary
caregivers.
(2) Names and other identifying information made confidential under subrule (1) of this
rule may only be accessed or released to authorized employees or contractors of the
department as necessary to perform official duties of the department pursuant to the act,
including the production of any reports of non-identifying aggregate data or statistics.
(3) The department shall verify upon a request by law enforcement personnel whether a
registry identification card is valid, without disclosing more information than is
reasonably necessary to verify the authenticity of the registry identification card.
(4) The department may release information to other persons only upon
receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all individuals with legal
authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a registered
qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying patient's
registered primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information
the department is authorized to release and to whom.
(5) Violation of these confidentiality rules may subject an individual to the penalties
provided for under section 6(h)(4) of the act.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you tell a buddy at work, and he tells your boss, the buddy is not in trouble for disclosing the fact. I think its unfortunate the way this has turned out for you and your family. The difference is that this person told was a professional at the center, and that disclosure may be your ace in the matter.  I know its the last thing that should be on your mind in these times. I hope you can find resolve soon.

 

you're in my thoughts+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"case law"  ? nah, I've got none.   would this need to be "tested" really to be accepted? 

 

if your buddy tells a press operator(?) he takes oxycontin for pain and she tells the lunch room.........who would think that she is protected when she divulged the info in the first place. hippa? yeah, right. Hippa has nothing to do with that. break into his house, fax a copy of his medical records to the newspaper....now we've got recourse.

 

might be a good time for a legal beagle to check in.... :judge:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this what you refer to?

 

(4) A person, including an employee, contractor, or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

the MMMA has a confidentiality section and a law against divulging mmma info such as address and patient name...

 

if so, read closer, and see exactly to whom this applies to. Not the factory worker, landlord, or facebook member, unless of course, they also work for the "department"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is this what you refer to?

 

(4) A person, including an employee, contractor, or official of the department or another state agency or local unit of government, who discloses confidential information in violation of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both. Notwithstanding this provision, department employees may notify law enforcement about falsified or fraudulent information submitted to the department.

 

 

if so, read closer, and see exactly to whom this applies to. Not the factory worker, landlord, or facebook member, unless of course, they also work for the "department"

It says "a person." Read up in what "including" means in legal language....the same as "including but not limited to." It is inclusive and not exclusive, so the quoted passage is not confined to apply to department personnel. It includes department personnel but is not limited to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"case law"  ? nah, I've got none.   would this need to be "tested" really to be accepted? 

 

if your buddy tells a press operator(?) he takes oxycontin for pain and she tells the lunch room.........who would think that she is protected when she divulged the info in the first place. hippa? yeah, right. Hippa has nothing to do with that. break into his house, fax a copy of his medical records to the newspaper....now we've got recourse.

 

might be a good time for a legal beagle to check in.... :judge:

 

 

Tested  to be Accepted             sound like a great new T-shirt logo to me

thanks 

grass match

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...