UCLA Medical Center for years has been the hospital of choice for public figures in Southern California – mainly because of its convenient location to where prominent celebrities live (e.g. Brentwood, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, etc.) and its state-of-the-art facilities. However, UCLA Medical Center has also been the epicenter for violation of patient privacy laws in the United States, but is this unavoidable? Do high-profile/public figures deserve the same privacy protections that an average citizen-patient would get? The easy answer is: abosultely! The problem is that, as human beings, our curiousity sometimes gets the better of us, and we do things/actions, that a normally reasonable person would find offensive (unless we are in the checkout line of the grocery store).
Lawanda Jackson, an employee at the UCLA Medical Center, was indicted on April 9, 2008, on the charge of obtaining individually identifiable health information for commercial advantage. Representatives for Actress Farrah Fawcett allege that Ms. Jackson leaked personal information about her battle with cancer to the National Enquirer in exchange for money. The LA Times also reported that she pried into the files of CA First Lady Maria Shriver, Fawcett, and 60 other public figures. Ms. Jackson has denied that the leaked information was for profit, and that she was the source of any leaked information to the National Enquirer, which is owned by American Media Inc. (AMI). AMI reporter Alan Smith defended his coverage of Fawcett’s battle with cancer as newsworthy and accurate.
By hanging her defense on the notion that she leaked the information "gratis" and that she is not the "source" of the information, her lawyers are hoping that she can avoid a conviction with a possible penalty of 10 years imprisonment. However, this case is an underpinning of a much larger and growing epidemic in American society – namely the unauthorized dissemination of [public figure] medical records to the general public. Should this case ever be argued in front of a jury the question they will have to answer is whether a public figure’s expectation of privacy, in regards to medical matters, is the same as that of the average citizen-patient. Is it even plausible to draw a distinction between a "newsworthy and accurate" story and a celebrity’s right to keep their medical records private? The more we try to skew the purpose and intent of patient privacy laws, the greater chance there is of diminishing its intended effectiveness.
An invaluable lesson for business executives to take from this case is that: our employees are, for the most part, good, honest, and law abiding citizens, but when befallen on hard times, even the most trustworthy employee can partake in illegal activities that may ruin a business. Attorneys are always looking for the party with the "deepest pocket" to litigate against, and employees usually aren’t the ones matching that profile. Instead, many plaintiff attorneys will seek a judgment against the employers for negligently supervising an employee, failing to adequately implement/update a corporate safeguards program, or negligently storing patient/customer information. Ms. Jackson may get imprisonment, but her employer may get stuck with the check. Creating, maintaining, and auditing a records safeguard program is a business matter that should be taken seriously, or else the organization will pay sizeable cash awards, fines, and penalties for the wrongful actions of their employees.
To read the entire story click here: Celebrity-snooping ex-UCLA Medical Staffer is Indicted