Another Idiot Judge...

[insein]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04196/346128.stm

Lebanon man loses license over admitted beer consumption
Wednesday, July 14, 2004

By Martha Raffaele, The Associated Press

HARRISBURG -- A man who told doctors at a hospital that he drinks more than a six-pack of beer per day is now fighting to get his driver's license back because the physicians apparently reported him to the state.

Keith Emerich, 44, said yesterday he disclosed his drinking habit in February to doctors who were treating him for an irregular heartbeat.

"I told them it was over a six-pack a day. It wasn't good for me -- I'm not gonna lie," Emerich said in a telephone interview from his home in Lebanon, about 30 miles east of Harrisburg.

Emerich received a notice from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation in April that his license was being recalled effective May 6 for medical reasons related to substance abuse. He has petitioned a judge to restore the license, and a hearing has been set for July 29.

A state law dating to the 1960s requires doctors to report any physical or mental impairments in patients that could compromise their ability to drive safely, PennDOT spokeswoman Joan Nissley said. Nissley said she could not discuss the details of Emerich's case because of confidentiality requirements that also protect the doctor from being identified.

The law requires an indefinite recall of the license until the driver can prove that he is competent enough to drive.

Emerich said his heart problem prompted him to limit his beer drinking to weekends.

Aside from a drunken driving conviction when he was 21, Emerich, a pressman at a local print shop who lives alone, said he has a clean driving record and doesn't drink and drive.

"What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of PennDOT's business," he said.

Emerich said he initially thought the license recall notice was a joke, but then hired an attorney when he said he couldn't get an explanation from the transportation agency.

"They want me to go to counseling to prove that I'm OK," Emerich said. "I tried to go to a place ... and they wanted $250 for a three-month program."

Asked if he considered his client to be an alcoholic, Horace Ehrgood, Emerich's attorney, said, "It depends on what your definition is."

"Some people would say, absolutely, while other people would say, it's not affecting me in any way, shape or form," he said. "He's been able to go to work, and he's got a heck of a nice work record. He's been able to function in all other avenues of life."

Pennsylvania's transportation agency receives about 40,000 medical reports and recalls 5,000 to 6,000 licenses a year, but does not keep any statistics on its reasons for doing so, Nissley said. She also did not know how many recalls get appealed.

"Health issues can be very fluid," Nissley said. "You can have different health [problems] over the course of your lifetime, or over the course of a year."

Total fucking Bullshit. A doctor doesn't have the authority to TELL the police that a man who drinks on his own time might be unable to drive. This guy lost his license and the judge upheld it. What fucking BS. Top that all off with the fact that the Doctor remains anonymous. So the man has no legal recourse against the doctor either.

Talk about invasion of privacy.

 

[Hobbit]

Posted this earlier today. The guy has to pay $2000 for a car breathalyzer to get his car back. I also posted some related stories. Look here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10670

 

[Comrade]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04196/346128.stm



Total fucking Bullshit. A doctor doesn't have the authority to TELL the police that a man who drinks on his own time might be unable to drive. This guy lost his license and the judge upheld it. What fucking BS. Top that all off with the fact that the Doctor remains anonymous. So the man has no legal recourse against the doctor either.

Talk about invasion of privacy.

Agreed. The doctor would lose his license for violating the right to medical privacy passed under Clinton.

Federal law in this case supercedes the state provision. An appeal would resolve this case, but may not be worth his effort.

 

[insein]

Agreed. The doctor would lose his license for violating the right to medical privacy passed under Clinton.

Federal law in this case supercedes the state provision. An appeal would resolve this case, but may not be worth his effort.

I think it would be. To have to pay $2000 or more for a special device on his car because his doctor ratted on him is bullshit. He might as well put that towards legal fees and bet on winning.

 

[Moi]

Agreed. The doctor would lose his license for violating the right to medical privacy passed under Clinton.

Federal law in this case supercedes the state provision. An appeal would resolve this case, but may not be worth his effort.

I am not so sure that the law would be deemed invalid. Medical privacy laws were not meant to squelch all cases of privledge relief. For instance, it is still quite acceptable for a doctor to alert authorities of impending crimes commited by their patients...I would have to assume drunk driving counts.

I'm not sure what the Pennsylvania law actually states though.

 

[Comrade]

I am not so sure that the law would be deemed invalid. Medical privacy laws were not meant to squelch all cases of privledge relief. For instance, it is still quite acceptable for a doctor to alert authorities of impending crimes commited by their patients...I would have to assume drunk driving counts.

I'm not so sure either... I read up on the privacy laws a bit, and it's definately worth a trial.

http://www.privacy2000.org/presiden...the_Privacy_of_Medical_Records_Fact_Sheet.htm

Unveiling Safeguards for Sensitive Health Information. The new regulation being unveiled today:

Prevents doctors, hospitals, health plans, and other covered entities from releasing identifiable health information without a patient's written consent for purposes unrelated to treatment, payment, or priorities like public health. Currently, such data is often released to marketing firms, financial institutions, and employers without knowledge or consent, then used in direct marketing campaigns, loan eligibility decisions, and for other purposes.


Requires health plans and providers to publish a notice to patients about how their information is being used and to whom it is being disclosed;


Gives patients access to their own health file and the right to request amendments or make corrections;


Sets limits on medical record use and ensures the release of the minimum amount of information necessary. Currently, health care providers and plans often release a patient's entire health record even if the requestor needs only particular information;


Requires health plans and providers to establish internal procedures to protect the privacy of health records;


Balances public responsibility with privacy protections by requiring that information be disclosed only for research conducted responsibly; and


Creates new criminal and civil penalties for improper use or disclosure of information.

The courts should take it up, though. That law really sucks. Sucks ass. Nobody hearing of this case will ever be completely honest with their doctor again, if they were smart.

We absolutely must be encouraged to tell our doctor the truth, without fear of consequences. This is a bad precedent!

 

[Moi]

I'm on the fence about the part which says they can disclose for public safety. Certainly, stopping a drunk driver who may kill people is for the public health.

 

[Comrade]

I'm on the fence about the part which says they can disclose for public safety. Certainly, stopping a drunk driver who may kill people is for the public health.

I've heard of how psychologists are required to report to the police of any crime their patient declares they will commit.

Beyond that there is the Penn. law, where you are probably right about.

I'd say it needs to get axed, but I'm probably not going to worry too much about it, being a Washingtonian and all that.

 

[insein]

I'm on the fence about the part which says they can disclose for public safety. Certainly, stopping a drunk driver who may kill people is for the public health.

Ummm the guy has been drinking alcohol for presumably 21 years since he's 42 years of age. He hasnt had a violation since he was 21. It has never caused a problem at work. He has never driven drunk since his DWI at the age of 21. Where is the inference that a crime will be committed if one hasnt been committed in 21 years of the same behavior.

This is horrible. A guy goes to make himself better at a doctor and discloses his behaviors to better help the doctor determine whats the best course of action. Then the doctor betrays him and tells the cops that he drinks alot. WTF is that? Alcohol effects different people differently. Bigger people can handle more alcohol, etc. Its total BS.