It is in your own interest to correct it.
If I were king, the fact that it resulted in the patient being denied a freedom that others have, and a freedom that the patient would have had were it not for the negligence of allowing the misinformation to stand after being informed about it, would be sufficient to establish that defamation had occurred. And I don't think that legal remedies should only be available to people whose revenue is affected. For example, I haven't seen anything in the Bill of Rights that says those rights only apply when people are using them to make money.
If you're talking about anything outside the government, HIPAA does give you some amount to at least annotate the record.
Oi, that would be something. Every single person would have to personally verify every piece of information every single time. Sending a single email would require perhaps weeks or months of research.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The Supreme Court finding for the government was only about damages and the fact that I had not claimed pecuniary loss; it wasn't about the illegality of the database match. The decision that the match was illegal was made at the district court level and was not challenged by the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court. The district court found that the government violated the privacy act multiple times during the Operation Safe Pilot investigation, but because there was a circuit court split over whether the term "actual damage" in the privacy act included proven mental and emotional distress or was limited to pecuniary damage, and the 9th Circuit hadn't ruled on the issue, the judge felt he had to rule for the government in awarding damages because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
I was proposing a duty that would only exist once the person had been informed and given evidence of the error. I'm not saying that they should have a duty to determine the veracity of the information for themselves.
That's sorta the same thing. Without verifying, how would they know whether the "evidence" is valid or not. Big can o' worms.
If the correction came from the same source as the original information, there wouldn't be much justification for trusting the original diagnosis from a particular source, and then not trusting a correction from that same source.
Nah. The debt collector buys the debt from the provider for pennies on the dollar. When you get the collection letter, just call them and cut a deal for less than the original amount owed.
SJ?
You're living in the past, Stan. The last admin, was trying to coalesce all the databases into one huge database. Then Viola! No sharing issues. I doubt it will get anywhere....but since the Fed. Admins now has a single Central I.T office in Arlington VA, how hard can it be?
Bruce, it's certainly not a difficult technical challenge, and hasn't been for decades. That is precisely why the bipartisan Privacy Act of 1974 was codified; it was to prevent the kind of unbridled data sharing of information about individuals among government agencies that was used to target political opponents, specifically Richard Nixon's use of agencies to amalgamate embarrassing information about people on his "enemies list" and then threatening them with blackmail unless they stopped being critical of the president's policies.
Not sure it was as partisan as you make it out to be.
The Court's Opinion was written by Justice Alito, and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (all appointed by Republican presidents).
