• radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Psst…the responder isn’t really the nurse from the story. It’s someone pretending to be the nurse and blurring names so that they can rile you up.

  • tee900@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Ragebait folks. Yes it might exist out in the wild but do something better with your time.

  • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    No way a nurse is responding to a post like this. This is a troll who came across a public post and is pretending to be the nurse, blacking out names, and posting this elsewhere for the updoots.

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That last comment is 100% actionable by both her employer and the patient.

    Don’t be dumb with that shit. Judges don’t fucking listen to it was just a joke wink wink unless you have some good fucking lawyers.

    • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Can you explain how exactly? They only mentioned that they gave them a sticker at the end of the appointment.

      Is it purely the fact that they admitted there was an appointment?

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t agree.

          Protected Health Information, PHI, includes anything used in a medical context that can identify patients. Although it doesn’t explicitly address personally identifiable information, the HIPAA Security Rule regulates situations like this under the term Protected Health Information (PHI). Some examples of PHI data can include:

          • Name
          • Address
          • Date of birth
          • Credit card number
          • Driver’s license
          • Medical records

          None of those were revealed. If some intrepid ambulance chaser wants to argue “i gave your son a sticker” is a “medical record”, go for it. Hell in some Bumblefuck red state county you might get in front of a judge with that. But you will not be making any money off of it, and no serious attorney would waste the court’s time.

          • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think something most people don’t know is that ANY piece of information that can be used to identify a specific patient is a HIPAA violation. What you posted are definitive pieces of information that qualify but it’s not limited to those.

            I think the replier will have a hard time defending themselves if they are indeed a healthcare employee that has knowledge of the patient. Doesn’t specifically say who the patient is but does confirm it’s poster’s kid. If that’s easily identifiable via the same social media platform IDK what they’d hide behind.

          • ShunkW@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Confirming someone is a patient without consent is a violation.

            Edit: but the mom did open the door I suppose so maybe not.

          • Railing5132@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago
            1. the judge wouldn’t be in bumble fuck, TN or anywhere else other than in a civil rights case brought by the department of health and human services in DC. You’d be charged in federal court.
            2. disclosing information that relates to the “a) treatment, b) payment, or c) operations” (not medical procedures, that’s under “treatment” - this is things like quality assurance and training) need to have a client authorization for disclosure.

            Strictly speaking, this nurse confirmed the identity of a specific individual that received a _specific treatment_ at a specific facility (her employer) to a public forum, all without the authorization of the client. Any compliance office would hang the nurse out to dry, even as a proactive measure, to mitigate a potential unauthorized disclosure claim.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I see, i see, a federal case even. Mmm.

              So, counselor, what was the specific treatment then?

              • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Laws are generally not stupid enough to allow magic wording loopholes.

                If it’s obvious that the nurse saying they gave the boy a “brave boy” sticker means the boy got a vaccine, that’s the same thing as saying he got a vaccine.

                Compare to hypothetical statements like

                “I can’t say what procedure she got, but she’s going to need to keep buying tampons for the next 9 months”

                “I can’t say what procedure they got, but they’ll definitely need to sit to pee from now on.”

                “I can’t say what procedure he got, but keep strong magnets away from him his chest.”

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you want to claim VaxBatCrazy59’s son had an appointment, do it. If you think you can win that case (and btw what case is that?) then bring it. Assuming you’re a DA with nothing better to do.