Biggest jerk?

[lobelsteve]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Doctor appears in court video call while performing surgery

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Medical Board of California said it would investigate a plastic surgeon who appeared in a videoconference for his traffic violation trial while operating.

apnews.com

 

[bedrock]

The fact that he is a plastic surgeon says everything. 90% of them are douchebags.

 

[Laryngospasm]

I heard him defending his action saying a partner was closing and the case was done. Don’t really know the details though.

 

[pmrmd]

The surgeon was done with his portion of the surgery and was observing. The camera should have been turned off.

 

[lobelsteve]

No respect for the court. Contempt.

 

[pmrmd]

No respect for the court. Contempt.

Traffic court. The court overseeing speed traps and meter maids. Meh.

 

[lobelsteve]

Societal decline. And the fact that the lack of decorum doesn't bother people much is more concerning.

 

[pmrmd]

I believe the facts are the surgery schedule went well, well over time and there is no way to cancel last minute and he was expecting a telephonic not video appearance. This isn’t as bad as it seems.

 

[Ducttape]

this is still a violation of patient privacy... unless the patient signed a waiver allowing others to watch his/her surgery.

and if the doctor did get a signed consent from the patient allowing the videotaping, then that in itself is a sign that the doctor already determined that he would use this situation to his advantage.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

this is still a violation of patient privacy... unless the patient signed a waiver allowing others to watch his/her surgery.

and if the doctor did get a signed consent from the patient allowing the videotaping, then that in itself is a sign that the doctor already determined that he would use this situation to his advantage.

are there patient identifiers easily visible? Can you see the patients face? If the answer to both are no, HIPAA has not been violated.

 

[SommeRiver]

Dude is probably in a hospital and was supposed to start at 0730 so he could be ready at 1100 for his court appearance. Case didn't start until 1045 bc the nurses had to huddle.

 

[NJPAIN]

Societal decline. And the fact that the lack of decorum doesn't bother people much is more concerning.

You are SO right Steve.

 

[pmrmd]

this is still a violation of patient privacy... unless the patient signed a waiver allowing others to watch his/her surgery.

and if the doctor did get a signed consent from the patient allowing the videotaping, then that in itself is a sign that the doctor already determined that he would use this situation to his advantage.

The surgeons head was the only thing visible. The camera was directly on him.

 

[Ducttape]

are there patient identifiers easily visible? Can you see the patients face? If the answer to both are no, HIPAA has not been violated.

I'm pretty sure that is not enough - you have to get authorization from the patient prior to the procedure.

New York Hospital Fined $2.2 Million for Unauthorized Filming of Patients

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has fined New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) $2.2 million for allowing

www.hipaajournal.com

in this case, the patient has full right to complain that the court proceedings, which were to be live streamed, were obtained without his consent.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

I'm pretty sure that is not enough - you have to get authorization from the patient prior to the procedure.

New York Hospital Fined $2.2 Million for Unauthorized Filming of Patients

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has fined New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) $2.2 million for allowing

www.hipaajournal.com

in this case, the patient has full right to complain that the court proceedings, which were to be live streamed, were obtained without his consent.

comparison is not the same. In the example you provided, the patients PHI was visible. In the traffic court video, no part of the patient or any PHI is visible. therefore it is enough.

 

[Ducttape]

true enough regarding my post, but you did not address the other probably more salient point - the patient has a right to complain that HIPAA was violated because he did not consent to the filming of the procedure, even if he was not visible (what looks like his abdomen and what looks like a fluoro image is).

 

[Ferrismonk]

It's still a HIPAA violation because you could hear the pulse ox (oxygen level, heart rate) and if you knew of someone who was in the OR at that time, you could know PHI.

 

[SSdoc33]

and all of a sudden we have a new candidate for the "Biggest Jerk" prize. probably the least shocking news of the day:

Sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz emerges from Joel Greenberg prosecution: report

Federal authorities are investigating potential sex trafficking violations by U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a probe that emerged from the prosecution of former Seminole County tax collector Joel Greenberg,…

www.orlandosentinel.com

 

[lobelsteve]

and all of a sudden we have a new candidate for the "Biggest Jerk" prize. probably the least shocking news of the day:

Sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz emerges from Joel Greenberg prosecution: report

Federal authorities are investigating potential sex trafficking violations by U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a probe that emerged from the prosecution of former Seminole County tax collector Joel Greenberg,…

www.orlandosentinel.com

Justice Department investigating Matt Gaetz as part of broader trafficking probe into another Florida politician

Rep. Matt Gaetz on Tuesday denied that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old after the New York Times reported that, according to its sources, the Justice Department was investigating a possible sexual relationship with the girl and whether he paid for her to travel with him.

www.cnn.com

 

[SSdoc33]

Justice Department investigating Matt Gaetz as part of broader trafficking probe into another Florida politician

Rep. Matt Gaetz on Tuesday denied that he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old after the New York Times reported that, according to its sources, the Justice Department was investigating a possible sexual relationship with the girl and whether he paid for her to travel with him.

www.cnn.com

well, if he denied it, then there's nothing to it, i guess.

the story is actually a pretty long one, starting with a d-bag associate of his in orlando. in any case, it does look like a 38 year old dude was traveling and schmoozing with a 17 year-old. plus, he is not running for re-election for some reason.

we'll see what happens, but what is more likely: some nameless/faceless DOJ official is trying to extort Matt Gaetz, or he was shtupping an underage girl?

 

[Status Sciaticus]

true enough regarding my post, but you did not address the other probably more salient point - the patient has a right to complain that HIPAA was violated because he did not consent to the filming of the procedure, even if he was not visible (what looks like his abdomen and what looks like a fluoro image is).

I'm not too well versed on this, but you may be right about not consenting to the video taping, but if it goes to court, and it is determined that PHI is not compromised, I dont know if it will hold up. HIPAA deals with PHI, not so much informed consents.

It's still a HIPAA violation because you could hear the pulse ox (oxygen level, heart rate) and if you knew of someone who was in the OR at that time, you could know PHI.

LOL so if you can hear a pulse ox, you know who the person is? Bruh....
"If you know someone who is in the OR at that time", you already know that someone, AKA know their PHI. Pulse ox is not a HIPAA violation.

 

[thiswonthurtabit]

and all of a sudden we have a new candidate for the "Biggest Jerk" prize. probably the least shocking news of the day:

Sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz emerges from Joel Greenberg prosecution: report

Federal authorities are investigating potential sex trafficking violations by U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, a probe that emerged from the prosecution of former Seminole County tax collector Joel Greenberg,…

www.orlandosentinel.com

As much as I hate Gaetz can we keep our threads clean and focused on the OP. I love to talk **** about republican policy and certain particularly vile republicans but we don't need EVERY thread to devolve into that.

 

[SSdoc33]

As much as I hate Gaetz can we keep our threads clean and focused on the OP. I love to talk **** about republican policy and certain particularly vile republicans but we don't need EVERY thread to devolve into that.

fair enough. i thought he matched the title of the thread, but point taken

 

[Orin]

It's still a HIPAA violation because you could hear the pulse ox (oxygen level, heart rate) and if you knew of someone who was in the OR at that time, you could know PHI.

HIPAA violation seems like a stretch at best.

Most blanket consents include portions about photo/video stuff in the OR, but in this case, it is clearly not related to patient care, treatment, or education.

If the surgeon had just stepped into the sub-sterile core and/or broken their sterile scrub, they'd have been fine. Honestly I'm kinda impressed by a PP surgeon staying in the room for closure.