GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - The AHF Subpoena, What You Won't Read On AVN or XBiz

Biggy · 08-22-2015, 07:34 AM

That subpoena sounds like bullshit if you ask me.

Medical records are a very sensitive thing, and just because patients agreed to share it with some parties doesn't automatically assume it's non-private, and can be shared with anyone.

From a quick google search, to be HIPPAA compliant, the testing agencies & Dr. Riggs may have to notify the patients that they are sharing their information, as one precaution. So those letters would go a long way. Redaction or no redaction, medical information is medical information, a very compelling case can be made that if the patient doesn't want anything shared, then it's their right.

I don't think what they are asking for is narrow at all. "Hey, turn over all of your medical information that you've shared with other parties, and yeah - you can redact it."

Narrow would be asking about specific patients they are interested in, that they know they have approval for-- not asking for everything. This is not a narrow subpoena at all, its a fishing expedition, and if I was a betting man there will be a fight over it. I am sure the testing agencies know better and don't actively want to cooperate (And rightfully so out of privacy concerns), but Dr. Riggs, who knows, but if he's a smart man who doesn't want to put his financial life in jeopardy, he should know not to just turn everything over. He can scream he was subpoenad all he wants, it very well may not shield him from liability in other parts of the law.

08-22-2015, 07:34 AM
Biggy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,595	That subpoena sounds like bullshit if you ask me. Medical records are a very sensitive thing, and just because patients agreed to share it with some parties doesn't automatically assume it's non-private, and can be shared with anyone. From a quick google search, to be HIPPAA compliant, the testing agencies & Dr. Riggs may have to notify the patients that they are sharing their information, as one precaution. So those letters would go a long way. Redaction or no redaction, medical information is medical information, a very compelling case can be made that if the patient doesn't want anything shared, then it's their right. I don't think what they are asking for is narrow at all. "Hey, turn over all of your medical information that you've shared with other parties, and yeah - you can redact it." Narrow would be asking about specific patients they are interested in, that they know they have approval for-- not asking for everything. This is not a narrow subpoena at all, its a fishing expedition, and if I was a betting man there will be a fight over it. I am sure the testing agencies know better and don't actively want to cooperate (And rightfully so out of privacy concerns), but Dr. Riggs, who knows, but if he's a smart man who doesn't want to put his financial life in jeopardy, he should know not to just turn everything over. He can scream he was subpoenad all he wants, it very well may not shield him from liability in other parts of the law.