Wisconsin Doctors Being Investigated for Fake Sick Notes

[The Northerner]

The State of Wisconsin is going through a period of great tension and media frenzy after some Wisconsin doctors were caught on video giving sick notes to protesters.

Gov. Scott Walker is trying to pass a bill in the State of Wisconsin that will strip public union employees of their right to collectively bargain; its aim is to primarily limit the ability of work unions. This would
affect everyone from teachers to hospital workers. Protests started last Tuesday and, by Saturday, an estimated 68,000 protesters showed up.

Many of the state employees who went to protest would be in violation of their work contracts if they called in sick without a valid medical excuse.

The investigation is being carried out by University of Wisconsin School of Medicine to see whether Wisconsin doctors knowingly gave protesters sick notes so they could call in sick in order to protest and at the same time not violate their work contracts.

Read more: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7783014/wisconsin_doctors_being_investigated.html

[meegbear]

1. ...

Conservatives ginning up 'fake doctor's excuse' handout story at Wisconsin protests

[uppityperson]

2. Idiots. Per law, they can not give out "sick note" but can say people can return to work

Since HIPAA and other privacy laws came into effect, a doctor's not can ONLY say they were seen and the doctor releases them to go back to work. Putting anything like "they were sick with something" or even "they were sick" is prohibited by law. It is part of the privacy stuff that is ridiculous but is very different from in the "old days" when a doctor's note actually said something.

The media circus that came about from the story of the doctors and the sick notes has started to make unclear the real issues at hand.

If a particular employer, such as UW Health, prohibits their employees from doing medicine outside of their business, or from representing them at such events, then that is an employer/employee issue

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I saw the notes

They did say when the holder could return to work.

[rhett o rick]

3. LOL. Do they have subpoena power? What will they do with their findings? nm

[AngryAmish]

7. School District A thinks teacher B fakes being sick

School District A fires them. Union for B files greivance - says she has a sick note. School District A says this is BS, this is one of those Doctors who was giving out the fake notes.

Prove it, says the Union.

'Kay says the School DIstrict. In the arbitration process the Arbitrator has the power to issue subpoenas. Arbitrator issues subpeona.

If there are medical records and all that good stuff, Arbitrator puts Teacher B back to work with back pay.

If not, teacher is sol.

[rhett o rick]

9. "this is one of the doctors who was giving out the fake notes." What constitutes a "fake note"?

I guess I's have to see what the contract says about producing "medical records" to prove sickness. Accusing doctors of faking notes might get a little dicey for the School Dist. And I am guessing that the admin of the School Dist might look favorable on the teachers.

[Thav]

10. The Doctor says

the teacher needed a few days off due to the stress of a potentially life changing event causing a bout of depression.

[AngryAmish]

15. Under Oath lawyer for schhool dist asks where exam took place

If the answer is on the street then the arbitrator quite rightly could say this is bs.

[uppityperson]

17. You haven't been around many health care providers have you? Often are accosted "on the street"

[rhett o rick]

26. Under oath? You watch too much TV. nm

[DainBramaged]

13. Take away their tounge depressors....

[rhett o rick]

27. Tongue depressors are evil.

When my daughter was little and got sick, we went to the "on-call" doctor because her doctor was on vacation. I tried to warn him not to use a tongue depressor, but he didn't listen. And he paid the price.

[Lars39]

4. Can't start letting doctors see patients free of charge, eh.

What kind of awful precedence would that set? :sarcasm:

[joneschick]

5. personally, I like my HIPAA protections

if I run into my personal phys in the grocery store and he/she recognizes my condition and thinks I need to step away from the stress for my continued health and signs a note stating that, it's none of yer business! the wingers are really distraught about this...they wouldn't be any happier if all the workers *had* gone to a dr's ofc and used their health care benefits!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. HIPAA will not block a subpoena

[murielm99]

8. This is just another way to try to intimidate people.

I don't think this will go very far.

I posted this thread earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x474261

[Aerows]

11. Good luck violating HIPAA laws

.. and making inquiries into why a person was seen by a doctor. You have about as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind, and will likely be sued into the next year. Tea Baggers are pushing this, but as usual, have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of doctor/patient laws. I live in a fairly small town. I've "seen" my doctor in the grocery store before.

I DARE anyone to say that it is valid for a doctor, on scene, to have his or her medical opinion countered due to politics. A good doctor will, and is legally authorized, to say go to hell. They are ethically obligated to respond to help a person that is ill. Debate that however you wish, but I'd prefer them remain true to their ethical obligations and professional responsibilities.

[joneschick]

14. thanks for your input and a warm welcome to DU

:hi:

[Aerows]

19. Thank you very much

for the warm welcome :).

I'm a refugee from Huffington Post. I should have left sooner, but the AOL sale was the last straw.

Glad to be part of a true progressive community :)

[Poboy]

21. Yes, I'll vouch for Aerows. She's a fighter and will be a great member.

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Aerows]

23. You are a muffalatta eating poboy devourer

.. cher. Of course, we are going to hang together, :D!

Quick - what's for lunch on Monday's - we both can answer that question :D

In all seriousness, thank you for your warm welcome

[Poboy]

25. Red beans of course!

haha

[Aerows]

28. Seriously

thank you for making me feel welcome :)

[uppityperson]

16. By law, doctor's cannot release info without your ok. Here are links, HIPAA info...

edited to make the boxes right
http://www.legalworkplace.com/hipaa-misunderstandings-blog.aspx

It is never a violation of HIPAA to ask for information. Assuming that HIPAA applies at all, it is the release of information that is covered by HIPAA. Whether you want information about a potential accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, are looking for Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork to be completed, or just plain want the chronically absent employee to bring in a doctor's note justifying the absence, you are not violating HIPAA by making the request. Now, if the doctor provides you with the information without the employee's authorization, the doctor might be in violation, but your request is not.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html

Your health information cannot be used or shared without your written permission unless this law allows it. For example, without your authorization, your provider generally cannot:

Give your information to your employer
Use or share your information for marketing or advertising purposes
Share private notes about your health care

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/employers.html

Requests from your employer

The Privacy Rule does not prevent your supervisor, human resources worker or others from asking you for a doctor’s note or other information about your health if your employer needs the information to administer sick leave, workers’ compensation, wellness programs, or health insurance.

However, if your employer asks your health care provider directly for information about you, your provider cannot disclose the information in response without your authorization.

Covered health care providers must have your authorization to disclose this information to your employer, unless other laws require them to disclose it.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/courtorders.html

Court Orders and Subpoenas

A covered health care provider or health plan may disclose protected health information required by a court order, including the order of an administrative tribunal. However, the provider or plan may only disclose the information specifically described in the order.

A subpoena issued by someone other than a judge, such as a court clerk or an attorney in a case, is different from a court order. A covered provider or plan may disclose information to a party issuing a subpoena only if the notification requirements of the Privacy Rule are met. Before the covered entity may respond to the subpoena, the Rule requires that it receive evidence that reasonable efforts were made to either:

notify the person who is the subject of the information about the request, so the person has a chance to object to the disclosure, or to
seek a qualified protective order for the information from the court.

[Aerows]

22. It is all upon an ask but do not demand basis

and as for demanding it of the physician themselves, they have the right to say nothing.

There have also been cases of physicians and psychologists refusing under court order, and having the court order overturned due to privacy issues.

Again, this is a fight that many would like to have, and they want to have it for entirely selfish reasons. Protecting the patient is of tantamount concern, and should remain so.

If you become the patient in those shoes, you would do well to respect the privacy of people to go to their doctor, just like they are able to go to their priest or pastor, and have confidentiality. In the case of wrongdoing, that may be another story, but the problem is that "wrongdoing" is becoming an ever widening scope. "Not drinking 8 glasses of water a day" is wrongdoing in some eyes, because it is recommended. You are well on the way to fascism when you defy confidentiality agreements, and I say that even in favor of some I do not like.

[joeunderdog]

18. We get 3 (consecutive) days before they can require a note.

Is this the case for WI?

[sufrommich]

20. That's what my contract said too. Although there were exceptions

and it was up management whether to enforce it on an individual basis.

[Kingofalldems]

24. Unrec for anti-union tone