Kathryn Knott Case

really now...

Jassik is playing Devil's Advocate at this point and assuming every what if possible to defend this girl's actions. The fact of the matter is more than likely she did not have authorization/access to those files.

She is an attractive white woman my verdict probation !

Maybe make her watch Will and Grace.

Not really. These are defenses that have been used before in legitimate cases through interpretation of the law.

Inaccurate on all levels. The company has a reputation to uphold, and if they feel like an employee does not represent their brand in a positive light, they can take steps to terminate you based off of your conduct alone.

There is a part of an Employee's Offer Letter that states they are "at-will" employees, and their termination can be subject to end at any time.

Not saying this is the case with this scenario, but almost every company has some the right to terminate a person for their out-of-work conduct. It's just a matter of how much the company actually cares, and how much they feel it is hurting their reputation (pockets).

Yes, it is, if access isn't restricted to an authentication protocol or restricted to people subject to HIPAA as individuals, then the organization is in violation.


If she kept a copy locally, which isn't as uncommon as you may think, she already had the image. She may also crop or enhance images. The machine will take an image of a large area, but only a small part of the image may be needed, so the image can be cropped or contrasting colors added. She may be asked to reapply some of those filters to the source image. There are tons of reasons why she would legitimately need access to the xray image after the actual image is taken. In your typical fashion, you're making things overly emotional and attacking people. I've clearly stated my opinion on the subject and my reasoning. If you have any more questions, feel free to backread.

It's kind of funny when you come in and forcefully state that someone is wrong give a half assed reason why they are wrong and then admit to it being a shoddy-ish reason and that it's only applicable in certain situations with certain places of employment lol...

I had this feeling like you were walking backwards the whole time you were saying that...

Edit: It's dependent on your contract, the field you're in and the case they can make against you. What Jassik said is by no means innacurate on all levels and you yourself even chipped away at your own statement lol..

EDIT: They aren't legitimate defenses because again she can solely be terminated because of ethical conduct. He's blatantly circumventing ethical conduct of medical practitioners and using every what if to protect her actions. Because she interacts with patients she is automatically held to a higher moral code by the state agency and hospital

I mentioned this on the first page but there is no legal protection that guarantees you the right to work with patients. That's up to the hospital and state.

Whether you want to believe that they are or not is up to you but in reality they are. Be outraged all you like.

Man... if they were to terminate everyone who ever posted one of those, Look what he shoved up his *** x-rays, we'd have an even greater shortage of medical staff in the US...

Hey the episodes with Karen are the best.

There is merit in considering the organization's reputation. The problem I have with that argument is that her place of employment should have nothing to do with the charges against her. If people are concerned about a possible violation of privacy, advertising the name of the organization only further narrows the search for anyone looking to line that image up with a person. It's a fine line, if they have policies that strictly forbid what she did, even if it isn't a HIPAA violation, then should fire her under those violations. The same goes for her being charged with a crime, I know a couple people who were falsely accused of a crime, I mentioned one in a previous thread. He was falsely accused of rape, everything was cleared up, the girl was raped, but not by him, and she made a mistake and owned it. However, he still lost his scholarship because of the accusation. Another friend was accused of battery, he ended up missing 3 days of work while he was detained and an automatic restraining order prevented him from getting his vehicle or getting access to his finances which cause further loss of work. Then multiple court appearances were the last straw, his company fired him for attendance. The charges were dropped when the "witness" admitted that they only heard a scuffle from 2 apartments away, and that they hadn't actually seen anyone come or go, but just pointed out the friend because he knew that he lived there. The "victim" went along with the story because he didn't want to admit that it had been his dealer attempting to collect money he owed him.

One innocent person lost an education simply by being charged with a crime, another lost their job because of the complications of having to defend himself.

If they are held to a higher standard, it is a policy or internal regulation, there isn't a higher bar legally. Medical boards do have ethical standards they can and do enforce, but don't confuse a hospital's policies with HIPAA regulations, they are different things.

Why? Every medical practitioner knows very well that they have to maintain a higher code of ethics because they work with patients.

She agreed to a higher code of ethics when she took the position. If she didn't want to maintain that code of moral there is nothing that prevents her from working in the field of nursing or er tech...as a teacher...but she can't work with patients.

Don't assume that people have a legal protected right to work with patients. Don't confuse a degree/title with the ability to work with patients, they are different things.

Bacon have you worked in a hospital? because I have and I know you're full of ***.

Yes I did when I was working on my MPH program. EDIT: That's also why I know a lot of people in the medial field, most of my friends are RNs or NPs because an MSN program takes place in the same department as MPH, usually.

I am not full of ***! I enema before sex!

fair enough, ya'll have fun, gotta run.

since we are discussing HIPAA and I recently had surgery, I had to sign a pile of release forms with regards to who did and did not have permission to access various results/tests/documentation of said surgery. would this not come into play for liability regarding those X-Rays she leaked as well?

The only exception I know of this is if the results(x-ray,blood panel, etc) are somehow a public health concern. In which case the county can take hold of those results/documents.

What shocks me is people defending her posting of these documents to twitter: "it's ok because no patient name was released."

No that doesn't make it ok. 1) it's unethical. you don't post patient files to social media regardless if their name is visible or not. 2)If she's leaking documents to twitter I can only imagine who/where else she is uploading these documents/files.

The terms ethics and medicine are synonymous when dealing with patients.

It's not defending her posting the documents to twitter. No one is saying that what she did is right or what she should have done.

These are valid defenses used when someone has been accused of these things and have been used (successfuly) in the past to dodge any sort of punishment.

It usually seems to be frowned upon when medical professionals post ***like this but it still happens from time to time and people, in my experience at least, usually get a slap on the wrist for it unless it turns out to be something like this. She will be used as an example because she's in the spot light for something else and you along with many others will look to crucify her for it because of that.

I mean she posted this on her twitter account and noone seemed to give a ***until she got arrested...

The hospital could be held at fault to for allowing personal medical information to be leaked. Why aren't you attacking the administration and going on about their inability to keep patient files confidential?

the terms ethics and medicine synonymous when dealing with patients? lols...

Also, you'd probably be pretty surprised how your medical records get pushed around and how many different people see them.

You have a very incomplete understanding of HIPAA and medical information in general. The release forms are specific exceptions for non-medical people like family members, organization specific privacy policies, and inter-organization information. Within a care provider, those releases aren't necessary. Private practices are a little tricky, but in a place like a hospital, information is shared based on need. If any attending physician has to be able to access your information to provide care, and any area with controlled access has more specific rules as well. You are misrepresenting the law and your authority on it. Again, HIPAA is VERY EASILY read and understood. Do some research.

They aren't valid defenses because they don't defend her ethic as a medical practitioner.