Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It seems hard to be too cynical about what the five most conservative justices are doing to the Constitution and the Court.

Ah, you mean the split decision that frustrated my firm’s client’s request to throw the AIA IPR statute out. Agree it was wrong.

[Icky Thump]

C'mon down K-pop stans

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

C'mon down K-pop stans

GoDaddy took the site down "for violating their terms of service."

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

GoDaddy took the site down "for violating their terms of service."

Then moved, then taken out again.

[Hank Chinaski]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost....apartment/amp/

Omar died.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Re: HIPAA. I've never had a tweet go viral before yesterday. That said, plaintiff's lawyers routinely pay hospital staff for PHI. Not sure how this would be different.

Plaintiff's lawyers, and defense lawyers, seek records with a plaintiff's consent. A plaintiff bringing an injury or med mal suit has to agree to disclose his medical records to prove his case.

Here you have some yokel suing a doctor and demanding the medical records of a third party patient to prove his case, running smack into HIPAA.

There are more insidious parts of it:

* Imposes costs on defense COUNSEL if they do not prevail. And they must prevail in all points or else they have not prevailed. No costs on plaintiffs. * That applies to challenges of ANY abortion laws in Texas.

That'll probably withstand a challenge. Don't see any unconstitutional element there.

* Can sue in any county in Texas and defense cannot change venue. Which means city docs and abettors are going to be hauled across to the most podunk, pre rigged counties in the state.

That's a great way to infuriate judges and gridlock the court system with frivolous horseshit. The forum non conveniens challenges alone could crash a small town docket.

* Abet or INTENDS to abet an abortion.

That's probably unenforceable as written. Unless there is an actual abortion, where's the injury?

* There's an emergency provision, but it's written in a way that we have to fucking wait for people to start bleeding out before we can terminate.


This is a diabolical, evil law that should have been struck down with prejudice. But given the make up of the Court, it's not surprising in the least.

We're going to have a lot more women die in childbirth. We're going to have a lot more bad babies. We're going to have a lot more OBs sued. The MFM docs are going to leave en masse.

And the legislature does not give a fuck. In fact, they're gleefully drafting more abortion restrictions as I type because they clearly got the go ahead from their buddies on the Court.




Biden should federalize docs, send down a fleet and open USA Abortion Clinics down here in all of the post offices.

This law is evil. It's despicable not only in its aim, and its deprivation of the rights of others, but also in its disrespect for the judicial system. It turns courts into romper rooms for right wing troglodytes. No sane judge wants this sort of garbage clogging his docket, and to the extent it delays and degrades the quality of services courts provide to deserving litigants, it victimizes the population far beyond the women and doctors it targets.

BUT... This thing is going down, and quickly. There is no way a law this stupid - and it is really fucking stupid - will withstand the first challenge it gets after some nitwit is dumb enough to file suit under it.

Everyone - and I mean everyone, including even a healthy percentage of sane Republicans, who realize how politically imbecilic this law is (which is why so many are quiet about it) - want this fakakta piece of shit stricken.

It's rare to be able to say the following about something political. Usually, one can separate politics from people and find something to like about someone with whom he or she disagrees with politically. But not here. If you like this law, you are a hideous cur, a societal shitstain. And that's not an opinion. It's a fact. You're simply awful. Shameful, subhuman. You should not be allowed to vote. You should not even be allowed to speak. You're perverted in the deepest sense -- a living example of all that is wrong and wretched in human nature. May the four winds blow you into oncoming traffic, and you live just long enough to feel the vultures pick at your roadkill carcass.

ETA: Where's the injury to any plaintiff here? How is some fundamentalist twit injured because a doctor across the state performed an abortion?

ETA2: And isn't this state sponsored champerty? Wouldn't the authors of this bill who are lawyers be engaged in unethical conduct to the extent champerty violates TX bar rules?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

BUT... This thing is going down, and quickly. There is no way a law this stupid - and it is really fucking stupid - will withstand the first challenge it gets after some nitwit is dumb enough to file suit under it.

You think a law is going down because it's stupid when it's first heard in front of judges who snack on horse paste during the recess and ultimately gets appealed to justices who measure their self-worth based on the amount of applause they get at the Fed Society Gala?

Never bet against the stupidity or vanity of the judiciary.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Plaintiff's lawyers, and defense lawyers, seek records with a plaintiff's consent.

Lol.

If someone gets a cancer traceable to a particular tortfeasor his or her phone will get more phone calls from plaintiffs' lawyers than most of us get about our car warranty. The phone (coincidentally, linked to the number given to the hospital) will literally melt from such calls.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Lol.

If someone gets a cancer traceable to a particular tortfeasor his or her phone will get more phone calls from plaintiffs' lawyers than most of us get about our car warranty. The phone (coincidentally, linked to the number given to the hospital) will literally melt from such calls.

Hospitals leak that info to plaintiff's counsel? That's a straight up violation of HIPAA (and probably several other statutes and common law torts).

Aren't firms afraid of using that info? I could see a criminal investigator looking into that sort of leaking. One would assume the firm was somehow paying off people in the hospital for the info. Why else would someone in health care risk their job and possible civil or maybe criminal sanction?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You think a law is going down because it's stupid when it's first heard in front of judges who snack on horse paste during the recess and ultimately gets appealed to justices who measure their self-worth based on the amount of applause they get at the Fed Society Gala?

Never bet against the stupidity or vanity of the judiciary.

A lot of assumptions I hold fail me. One that does not is a firm belief the greatest incentive on Earth is the promise of work avoidance. And, of course, that incentive becomes increasingly powerful as the nature of the work sought to be avoided becomes increasingly annoying.

This law will irritate the shit out of judges. Imagine the forum change applications, discovery disputes, heavy handed attempts to drag medical professionals into depositions. Fucking disaster. Everything will be appealed. And nobody will back down because there will be private donor money backing both plaintiffs and defendants.

Sure, a few disgusting judges who like to legislate from the bench and have no respect for women will rule in ways that assist the vile aims of this statute. But the majority of people I've known from TX are not crazy. They tend to be decent, sane folks. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't see many of the judges, a majority of whom hail from normal areas filled with normal Texans who respect women, and desire a functional court system, supporting this abusive kind of shit. And I certainly don't see this nonsense legislation surviving after someone finds a way to challenge it within a case before a federal judge who is not a member of the Federalist Society and closeted John Birch admirer.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hospitals leak that info to plaintiff's counsel? That's a straight up violation of HIPAA (and probably several other statutes and common law torts).

Aren't firms afraid of using that info? I could see a criminal investigator looking into that sort of leaking. One would assume the firm was somehow paying off people in the hospital for the info. Why else would someone in health care risk their job and possible civil or maybe criminal sanction?

It's not the hospitals. It's the aide in the ER or on the wards who overhears something and has a buddy that will pay for any info that could lead to a suit.

And so long as the subpoena includes a letter of assurance (that they've notified the patient and there's been enough time to object), then covered entities are more than able to release medical records for third parties.

Also, HIPAA does include a whistleblower provision which may or may not apply in this case. It's very specific (and most idiots in healthcare facilities looking to sell patient data aren't going to understand it), but since it was designed for Qui Tam cases, it absolutely allows a healthcare employee to give PHI to a lawyer (who the employee has retained). I'm not sure if OCR is going to interpret this provision to apply to the Texas law, but it does make me pause in saying that HIPAA absoltuely does not allow employees/covered entities from using PHI to claim a fucking bounty:

(1) Disclosures by whistleblowers. A covered entity is not considered to have violated the requirements of this subpart if a member of its workforce or a business associate discloses protected health information, provided that:

(i) The workforce member or business associate believes in good faith that the covered entity has engaged in conduct that is unlawful or otherwise violates professional or clinical standards, or that the care, services, or conditions provided by the covered entity potentially endangers one or more patients, workers, or the public; and

(ii) The disclosure is to:

(A) A health oversight agency or public health authority authorized by law to investigate or otherwise oversee the relevant conduct or conditions of the covered entity or to an appropriate health care accreditation organization for the purpose of reporting the allegation of failure to meet professional standards or misconduct by the covered entity; or

(B) An attorney retained by or on behalf of the workforce member or business associate for the purpose of determining the legal options of the workforce member or business associate with regard to the conduct described in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section.

That said, the only criminal sanctions that OCR has imposed on individuals has been for selling PHI for personal gain, and I'm very, very hopeful that they're aware of this law and slam hard anyone found to have sold out their patient's information for this travesty.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hospitals leak that info to plaintiff's counsel? That's a straight up violation of HIPAA (and probably several other statutes and common law torts).

Aren't firms afraid of using that info? I could see a criminal investigator looking into that sort of leaking. One would assume the firm was somehow paying off people in the hospital for the info. Why else would someone in health care risk their job and possible civil or maybe criminal sanction?

Fuck if I know. Yeah and it's probably a violation of every single ethical canon in every state. I just know that the dudes who are getting these cases are flying in G-5s while I am trying to score frequent flyer bitch miles.

Playas. Playas. Big dick playas. Swinging past your knees.

Or you can grow a conscience in the next five minutes and see where that takes you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It's not the hospitals. It's the aide in the ER or on the wards who overhears something and has a buddy that will pay for any info that could lead to a suit.

And so long as the subpoena includes a letter of assurance (that they've notified the patient and there's been enough time to object), then covered entities are more than able to release medical records for third parties.

In that instance, why would a subpoena be needed? If the PI lawyer represents the Plaintiff/Patient, all he needs to submit is a medical records request on behalf of the Plaintiff/Patient.

Under the TX law, the Patient is a third party to a lawsuit between the abortion provider and a Plaintiff suing the provider. The Plaintiff there (let's call him "Shitball," because that fits) sues the provider and then demands the records of a third party patient whom he alleges received an abortion.

The provider has to notify the Patient before turning those over. Patient then objects to disclosure of private information in a case in which Patient is not even a party.

Do you see a judge overruling the privacy interests of a third party - privacy interests in the most personal and sensitive forms of information imaginable - to satisfy discovery requests from a litigant suing a third party under a statute nakedly enacted for purely political purposes over broad public objection?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Fuck if I know. Yeah and it's probably a violation of every single ethical canon in every state. I just know that the dudes who are getting these cases are flying in G-5s while I am trying to score frequent flyer bitch miles.

Playas. Playas. Big dick playas. Swinging past your knees.

Or you can grow a conscience in the next five minutes and see where that takes you.

Reminds me of that quote attributed, perhaps falsely, to Jeb Bush:

“The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter."

Ethics could be substituted for truth, and it certainly seems, if you look at Wall Street, and big PI, and just about any business where you can acquire enough to own and operate a G-5, it's preferable to ask forgiveness later rather than permission now. Wherever they are, Bill Lerach and Angelo Mozillo aren't living badly.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In that instance, why would a subpoena be needed? If the PI lawyer represents the Plaintiff/Patient, all he needs to submit is a medical records request on behalf of the Plaintiff/Patient.

Because some medical providers take authorizations and throw them in the trash. Others throw the authorizations and the subsequent subpoenas in the trash. They say "fuck you, get a court order." Which they sometimes respond to. They figure, "We ain't wasting no time with no bullshit".

I am thinking that is going to be the route here.