Has anyone been fired (testing labs)?



RonSonic wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>>
>>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>
>>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>
>
> The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
> what the question is about.
>
>
>>>#2: As I was thinking out loud during an exchange with Benjo, for the first
>>>time it came to me that perhaps there *is* a cultural issue with the leaky
>>>lab. A reason why it drives many Americans crazy (in terms of the type and
>>>number of leaks that occur) yet doesn't seem to bother the French. The plain
>>>& simple truth is that, here in the US, if someone were found to be the
>>>source of such leaks, they'd be fired.
>>
>>I completely disagree. Leaks happen all the time in U.S. law
>>enforcement. What makes you think it's just a Euro thing?
>
>
> They don't happen in medical testing labs. Remember that PI thing I keep
> bringing up as part of my background. Trust me on this. Or at least trust that
> any leakage has to be used as a lead to a legitimate source of the same info.
>

Leaking happens in all professions, in all contries.

Magilla
 
RonSonic wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Few would question that such an act
>>
>>>was called for, and the fact that such a realistic downside to not following
>>>the rules exists serves as a means of enforcing the rule.
>>
>>Let me ask you something - why are so concerned with the leaks - as
>>opposed to the positive test results? What is the point of finding out
>>who leaked this stuff?
>
>
> Because the Floyd Landis case has been completely FUBARed by the leakage. It
> would've been an ordinary weird test result that would've been resolved quietly
> and properly if it hadn't been for the leaks.
>


Hey dumbass,

The UCI leaked the result, followed by Phonak, not the lab. Get your
facts straight before you get righteous about what those non-existent
facts mean.

And it wouldn't have been resolved quietly. Floyd went AWOL during the
post-Tour crits and the media smelled blood. Floyd did that becase he
got the results, not because anyone leaked anythhing. The lab had
nothing to do with any leaks in Floyd's case.


Thanks,


Magilla
 
RonSonic wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>
>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>negative tests?
>
>
> It'll turn dubious positives into either certain positives or certain negatives
> without politics, ass covering and hysteria from assorted primates interfering.
>


Get real.


Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >
> > It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
> > wouldn't have access to the information.
>
> I would imagine pretty much anybody had access to the results.



Dumbass -


The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
to change the results.

That is not acceptable.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
> >>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
> >>>>negative tests?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
> >>
> >>
> >>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
> >>person running the test.
> >
> >
> > How do you know that?
> >
>
>
> Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
> the results based on this impartiality?

No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
to be true.

> And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
> to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
> implication that has never been shown to be true.

Hmm, sounds likewhat you're doing.

> Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?
>
> You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
> also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
> totally different things.

Firstly, I haven't said anything about "falsifying" tests. But why do you think
that a person who might come up with a result on a test being used in a way that has
never been run through any sort of trial would not have any compunctions about
leaking that result?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
> having access to your AIDS test results?

Only college graduates know how to conduct themselves
honorably. I must have overlooked that class in the
course catalogue.

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:

> RonSonic wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>
> >>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
> >>>
> >>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
> >>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
> >>
> >>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
> >>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
> >>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
> >>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
> >
> >
> > The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
> > what the question is about.
>
> How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?

Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
disposed of quietly?

--
Michael Press
 
> Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
> before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> disposed of quietly?

Magilla should shortly be making the case that that's proof malfeasance
isn't an issue.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> RonSonic wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla
>> > <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to
>> >>>mind-
>> >>>
>> >>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the
>> >>>testing?
>> >>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>> >>
>> >>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>> >>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>> >>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>> >>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>> >
>> >
>> > The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking.
>> > That is
>> > what the question is about.
>>
>> How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?
>
> Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
> before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> disposed of quietly?
>
> --
> Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
> before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> disposed of quietly?

How many results besides Armstrong's did "get broadcast far and wide"
through an indiscretion of a lab employee? In Landis's case it's the
UCI that decided to announce the positive. You seem to be doing a lot
of pattern extrapolation out of a single case.

jyh.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>>It's obviously someone who has some sort of "clearance", otherwise they
>>>wouldn't have access to the information.
>>
>>I would imagine pretty much anybody had access to the results.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> The "access" example I gave of our Math Department was they had access
> to change the results.
>
> That is not acceptable.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>


Nobody's changing lab results. It's not just a single number that
coomes up. You got all sorts of other things. And the B-sample test
along with it's results can be monitored by the athlete. How is someone
suppose to falsify a witnessed test?

Magilla
 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>>
>> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
>> having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing
>> intern at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because
>> it's on the form...
>
>
>
> I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
> information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am sure
> that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for the
> illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or low.
> How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis is
> another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds would
> have to get involved.
>
> Steve


Research results were leaked in Lance's case. There was no name
attached to them. Therefore no violation. It was the reporter from
L'Equipe that matched the name and ID number. It is very unlikley
whoever leaked this iinfo at the lab knew that could be done and
probably assumed they were merely leaking "general" results that riders
in the '99 Tour used EPO.

If this happened in the U.S. I seriously doubt the FBI would care. In
fact, it did happpen. Tammy Thomas sued USADA claiming that her case
was published in a medical journal article and that everyone knew it was
her. The FBI was never involved in that case.


Thanks,


Magilla
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>>>negative tests?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dumbass -
>>>>>
>>>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>>>person running the test.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
>>the results based on this impartiality?
>
>
> No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
> the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
> to be true.
>


Wrong. You guys are implying that leaking information equates to
falsifying it. The burden of proof lays with you, not me. If you can't
prove the lab work was falsified, then you failed to meet your burden.


Thanks,

Magilla
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Howard Kveck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't understand what your point is in finding out the source of these
>>>>>>leaks - do you think that doing so will somehow turn positive tests into
>>>>>>negative tests?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dumbass -
>>>>>
>>>>>It calls into question the impartiality of the lab.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Does it really? In reality, the person leaking the info is not the
>>>>person running the test.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Okay, let's say they are the same person. Are you saying they falsify
>>the results based on this impartiality?
>
>
> No. I'm saying that you've made a bold statement about who did or did not leak
> the results but you haven't offered any sort of rational reason why you believe it
> to be true.
>
>
>>And If you're not saying that, then shut up and don't even bring it up
>>to begin with because all you're doing is making some ambiguous
>>implication that has never been shown to be true.
>
>
> Hmm, sounds likewhat you're doing.
>
>
>>Can you give me any examples of this impartiality (in results, that is)?
>>
>>You people are trying to establish that people who leak information are
>>also somehow involved in falsifying test results, but the two are
>>totally different things.
>
>
> Firstly, I haven't said anything about "falsifying" tests. But why do you think
> that a person who might come up with a result on a test being used in a way that has
> never been run through any sort of trial would not have any compunctions about
> leaking that result?
>


So you in fact ARE implying the results were falsified.

Magilla
 
Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:55:14 -0500, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Regarding the labs doing the drug testing, a couple things come to mind-
>>>>>
>>>>>#1: What, exactly, are the rules regarding confidentiality of the testing?
>>>>>Are they recommendations, or are there sanctions that can occur?
>>>>
>>>>The CAS does NOT have the authority to impose a fine for breach of
>>>>confidentiality or any other mistake. The riders agreed to these rules
>>>>when they took out a license, so they lose the right to complain. If
>>>>they want to sue the lab, then be my guest.
>>>
>>>
>>>The LAB does have the authority to discipline an employee for leaking. That is
>>>what the question is about.
>>
>>How do you know they didn't already discipline the employee?
>
>
> Why do positive test results get broadcast far and wide
> before the investigation, hearings, and dispositions
> are announced? Why is malfeasance in the laboratory
> disposed of quietly?


Both of these are incredibly stupid questions with obvious answers that
you should be able to come up with yourself.

Magilla
 
Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>As for the 5 year lapse of time, so what. The samples were frozen.
>>They didn't degrade in the freezer.
>
>
> Supposition. The theory that they did not degrade is
> not proven. The EPO test is delicate and indirect.
>


Wrong. If the EPO degrades the EPO test would be negative, not
positive. It's just like a DNA test. If DNA degrades you don't get a
match. You get no banding.

There is scientific consensus on what I just said. And what you said is
simply not accurate and refuted by science.


Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to college
>>> having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil pushing
>>> intern at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition because
>>> it's on the form...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
>> information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am sure
>> that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for the
>> illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or low.
>> How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis is
>> another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds
>> would have to get involved.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
>
> Research results were leaked in Lance's case. There was no name
> attached to them. Therefore no violation. It was the reporter from
> L'Equipe that matched the name and ID number. It is very unlikley
> whoever leaked this iinfo at the lab knew that could be done and
> probably assumed they were merely leaking "general" results that riders
> in the '99 Tour used EPO.
>
> If this happened in the U.S. I seriously doubt the FBI would care. In
> fact, it did happpen. Tammy Thomas sued USADA claiming that her case
> was published in a medical journal article and that everyone knew it was
> her. The FBI was never involved in that case.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Magilla


I'm not sure that FBI would be the agency involved. I also have my
doubts that it would be a treated as a big deal by the feds. But to be
fair, I think the Tammy Thomas leak predated implementation of HIPAA.
Obviously, this would have no bearing on a lab in Europe in any case.

Steve



--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:23:33 -0500, MagillaGorilla
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for the 5 year lapse of time, so what. The samples were frozen.
>>> They didn't degrade in the freezer.
>> Supposition. The theory that they did not degrade is not proven. The
>> EPO test is delicate and indirect.
>>
>
>
> Wrong. If the EPO degrades the EPO test would be negative, not
> positive. It's just like a DNA test. If DNA degrades you don't get a
> match. You get no banding.
>
> There is scientific consensus on what I just said. And what you said is
> simply not accurate and refuted by science.
>
>
> Magilla

Please support the "scientific consensus" with some links. I note that
there was also "scientific consensus" that stress caused ulcers, but that
was entired proved false.

--
Bob in CT
 
Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:

> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to
>>>> college having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil
>>>> pushing intern at an insurence agency knowing your medical condition
>>>> because it's on the form...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
>>> information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am
>>> sure that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for
>>> the illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or
>>> low.
>>> How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis is
>>> another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds
>>> would have to get involved.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Research results were leaked in Lance's case. There was no name
>> attached to them. Therefore no violation. It was the reporter from
>> L'Equipe that matched the name and ID number. It is very unlikley
>> whoever leaked this iinfo at the lab knew that could be done and
>> probably assumed they were merely leaking "general" results that
>> riders in the '99 Tour used EPO.
>>
>> If this happened in the U.S. I seriously doubt the FBI would care. In
>> fact, it did happpen. Tammy Thomas sued USADA claiming that her case
>> was published in a medical journal article and that everyone knew it
>> was her. The FBI was never involved in that case.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that FBI would be the agency involved. I also have my
> doubts that it would be a treated as a big deal by the feds. But to be
> fair, I think the Tammy Thomas leak predated implementation of HIPAA.
> Obviously, this would have no bearing on a lab in Europe in any case.
>
> Steve

Medical record violations are generally treated as civil matters, since
most laws are only administrative code violations at the state level.

Any federal law that is violated would be investigated by the FBI or
nobody at all. ATF, DEA, SS, CIA have no jurisdiction.

USADA is considered a federal organization and drug samples are not
afforded the same confidentiality protections under the law as medical
records.

Tammy Thomas's case did not predate HIPAA. She invoked research federal
law but the judge ruled that published journal articles on WADA testing
is not classified as human research (i.e. clinical trials with
pharmaceuticals or other medical devices or treatments).


Magilla
 
Bob in CT wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:23:33 -0500, MagillaGorilla
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for the 5 year lapse of time, so what. The samples were frozen.
>>>> They didn't degrade in the freezer.
>>>
>>> Supposition. The theory that they did not degrade is not proven.
>>> The EPO test is delicate and indirect.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. If the EPO degrades the EPO test would be negative, not
>> positive. It's just like a DNA test. If DNA degrades you don't get
>> a match. You get no banding.
>>
>> There is scientific consensus on what I just said. And what you said
>> is simply not accurate and refuted by science.
>>
>>
>> Magilla
>
>
> Please support the "scientific consensus" with some links. I note that
> there was also "scientific consensus" that stress caused ulcers, but
> that was entired proved false.
>


You are correct about the scentific consensus of ulcers not being caused
by stress (it was later proven to be caused by bacteria and its
discoverer awarded the Nobel Prize). To be honest with you I never
suspected ulcers to be caused by stress because most diagnoses of ulcers
were done through patient's opinions. Also, why would stress cause
gastrointestinal ulcers? It doesn't make sense from a hormonal
standpoint. The stomach lining is built to withstand any amount of acid
it secretes, so I never bought that myself.


As for the EPO test, do the Google yourself. All the WADA labs agree
that EPO simply wouldn't be there if it degraded. But it's common
sense....if blood degrades, it won't degrade into EPO. The EPO test
only detects EPO-r proteins...

EPO is a protein, just like DNA. And DNA has been found in samples
decades old that weren't even preserved.


Magilla
 
MagillaGorilla wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>>>
>>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean like your physician's receptionist who never went to
>>>>> college having access to your AIDS test results? Or some pencil
>>>>> pushing intern at an insurence agency knowing your medical
>>>>> condition because it's on the form...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know the legalities in Europe. In the U.S. leaking this
>>>> information is almost certainly a violation of federal law. I am
>>>> sure that the facility could not claim they are not responsible for
>>>> the illegal actions of any of their employees, whether high-level or
>>>> low.
>>>> How well these federal laws are enforced on a day-to-day basis
>>>> is another thing. But in a high-profile case such as this, the feds
>>>> would have to get involved.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Research results were leaked in Lance's case. There was no name
>>> attached to them. Therefore no violation. It was the reporter from
>>> L'Equipe that matched the name and ID number. It is very unlikley
>>> whoever leaked this iinfo at the lab knew that could be done and
>>> probably assumed they were merely leaking "general" results that
>>> riders in the '99 Tour used EPO.
>>>
>>> If this happened in the U.S. I seriously doubt the FBI would care.
>>> In fact, it did happpen. Tammy Thomas sued USADA claiming that her
>>> case was published in a medical journal article and that everyone
>>> knew it was her. The FBI was never involved in that case.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Magilla
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that FBI would be the agency involved. I also have
>> my doubts that it would be a treated as a big deal by the feds. But
>> to be fair, I think the Tammy Thomas leak predated implementation of
>> HIPAA.
>> Obviously, this would have no bearing on a lab in Europe in any case.
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> Medical record violations are generally treated as civil matters, since
> most laws are only administrative code violations at the state level.
>
> Any federal law that is violated would be investigated by the FBI or
> nobody at all. ATF, DEA, SS, CIA have no jurisdiction.


Actually, HIPAA violations are reported and enforced by HHS Office for
Civil Rights:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacyhowtofile.htm




>
> USADA is considered a federal organization and drug samples are not
> afforded the same confidentiality protections under the law as medical
> records.
>
> Tammy Thomas's case did not predate HIPAA. She invoked research federal
> law but the judge ruled that published journal articles on WADA testing
> is not classified as human research (i.e. clinical trials with
> pharmaceuticals or other medical devices or treatments).


I'll take your word on her lawyer's approach. As far as HIPAA, the law
was passed but there was a significant time lag until compliance was
required (very incrementally) so it is altogether possible that the leak
of information predated compliance deadlines. I'm hardly an expert
here, but I doubt her case would proceed along the same lines had the
leak occured after HIPAA provisions were fully in place.

Steve


>
>
> Magilla


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
County Lochenjons. Has anyone been?
Replies
2
Views
475
Road Cycling
The Hookmaster
T
Boestey
Has anyone heard of RAMON cycles?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Road Cycling
Lennybelz
Lennybelz
L
Has anyone tried the Garmin Edge 800?
Replies
7
Views
4K
Road Cycling
deadhead1971
D
J
Has anyone heard of a bicycle builder named Shinko Marks?
Replies
0
Views
531
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
C
Has anyone seen Peter O'Neil lately?
Replies
5
Views
350
Road Cycling
Curtis L. Russell
C
Top Bottom Back