Does the Government Have the Right To Seize Medical Records?

I personally think it's outrageous.

Millions of people get multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians. It's nobody's business. Since when is that illegal? And since when are a person's medical records no longer private?

This must be some kind of personal or political vendetta.

I have no use for Limbaugh but this is very disturbing. As I understand it the authorities have no proof that Limbaugh was using multiple prescriptions and are hoping to find it in his medical records. This used to be called a legal fishing expedition.

I'm not sure what the case is there, and I have no interest in Mr. Limbaugh, one way or the other, but I do know that an investigation about doctor shopping here would be related to charges against the physicians and/or pharmacists. An individual's records would definitely be part of that investigation.

If there are specific laws against doctor shopping in the jurisdiction in which the charges were laid, and there was enough evidence to convince a judge to order the records, then, well, he's got to turn them over. I think that is right.

I don't understand what the problem is.

Getting someones medical records is the same as getting a warrant to search someone's house.

I am pretty sure that legally the prosecution has a right to these records providing a judge agrees they have enough evidence of a crime to warrant probable cause (and it sounds like they do).

But I am curious Phoenix. Do you see a philosophical difference between subpoenaing medical records and getting a search warrant?

A subpoena is not a search warrant, if I understand it correctly, It is an order to produce something or someone. If they thought they had the evidence, why didn't they ask for a search warrant?

I believe there are specific protected relationships: lawyer/client, doctor/patient, and priest/confessor. You cannot, for example, obtain a search warrant and go digging through the files of a lawyer defending a suspect. There are other relationships, such as accountant/client, which have no such protection. Search warrants are allowed, and testimony of a defendant's accountant can be compelled.

I believe its far too complicated for me to understand the legal issues involved.

roger, the privilege protection ceases if the lawyer/doctor/priest is part of the conspiracy.

Which one?

Oh, that conspiracy! True. Criminal lawyers must never let their clients confess privately. Still, if the evidence is in the records it gets into a bit of the Catch-22 situation.

Phoenix, according to floida law, sec 893, 'doctor shopping for the purpose of securing narcotics' is a felony. So there were 2 Fed judges who agreed to sign search warrants on the proviso that these search warrants be least intrusive to Rush. IE they were secured , used in the criminal investigation and remain sealed. except for that one use.
According to case law (Griswold v connecticut) 'a persons right to privacy is not absolute, and yields to compelling need by the state. Then it goes on to state that "compelling need" includes the prosecution of criminal activity.
seems to have bases covered enough for me.
Rush is bitching about how this is a Democrat plot to secure 'payback" for the bush-Gore florida tie breaker.
Like the Dems held him down and force-fed him the days output of Pfizers " Hillbilly Heroin" division. Rush has gone off a deep one here. that even tops his unique scientific "scholarship'

ditto ditto ditto.

How can a doctor be part of the conspiracy, if there is no proof that each doctor knew of other doctors who prescribed medication? If there IS proof of a conspiracy, is the law planning to prosecute the physicians involved?

farmerman- BTW, I found your post interesting, UNTIL you threw in the political stuff, which I expressly tried to avoid. There is a bigger issue here than politics. The political ramifications could well be discussed on another thread.

Ok, I had to get in what he9RUSH) said yesterday. I felt it was germain to the root of his assertion to privacy invasion. Indeed , the government went to extremes to provide him the guarantee of least intrusion
1 They used 2 judges to develop the search warrants (search warrants have a higher burden of probable cause than does a subpoena) so his rights werent infringed by law

2 The search warrants had a proscription against opening to anyone except the principle investigators and were to be used for the criminal investigation ongoing

3 That the doctors were part of the conspiracy is my take, since there are records of prescriptions made that, include the name of the patient. These records can be brought up like your credit card history and, unless names are falsified(which, to me indicates that the doctors were at least knowledgeable of the scam)
Or the doctors were selling out of their own "sample" stash, which is medical "pushing"

as far as a doctor/lawyer client privilege busting,
If a lawyer were representing a mafia capo in a case, and , at the same time this lawyer were acting as consiglieri for the local mob, he is part of the consapiracy and hes not protected by privilege. Of course prooving it is a maze of rules that are in place to assure the rights of individuals. The same goes for medicine men.

By the by, remember this is a criminal investigation, not some civil case , protocols are being followed that will have to stand against appeal. So being conservative in how the search warrants were sent up, I feel is a credit to the legal system in Florida.

This thread does point to a further advantage for a "National Health Plan", which, if it was in place would prevent all sorts of devices such as Doctor shopping.

Each citizen would have his/her own Health Card, such as we have in Canada. One touch of a button shows how many and to which health care service has been sought.

Isn't this a probable cause issue? Does Rushs' right, or mine too for that matter to my privacy end if there is sufficient irrefutable probable cause that a crime has been comitted?

We have that here. Rush by his own words obtained thousands of prescriptions and is a drug addict. I think there is probable cause that "doctor shopping" went on here, and if that's a legitimate crime, and there is legitimate probable cause that it took place, then Rush forfeits his right to privacy .

I fully understand that this is a slippery slope, but I'm sure Rush would agree "Law and Order first"

I think Rush has a valid argument.
I think the D.A. has a valid argument.
Thats why we have judges.

So we do, and if probable cause for a warrant seems shaky, would there be such a thing as judge shopping?

roger that's part of that slippery slope. Where does it end?

Do other countries place limits on this type of thing?

For instance.... 1 judge for a warrant, 1 try for another judge if turned down but that's it?

1 fair trial...1 appeal....then that's it?

I realize we will never eliminate corruption btw.

dys- I think that you have said it all!



ronmac60 - Not even considering the other ramifications of a "National Health Plan", I think that having all your personal information in one place, is a good reason NOT to institute such a plan. Egads, your entire medical history would be an open book for every clerk with a computer. There goes your privacy, right down the toilet!