Kathryn Knott Case

blarphy flarfy mcmormon yourshita

All I've seen is people jumping on the bandwagon to get someone fired.

Xray pictures could be from google as more of a joke ~

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=xray+pictures&biw=1525&bih=752&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=kFYjVOvwBoTV7gaAtYDwDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=0.9

Oh look millions of results... I think picture 2 might be of mt great anti sue from like a bajillion years ago.

She's been accused of a crime right? Well I'm accused of being a tremendous ***, which in all fairness I am, but there's no proof.

How many times do people get accused by incorrect ***? By incompetent eye witnesses?

http://www.ehu.es/malenmigueles/articulos/european.pdf

This is an article meaning eyewitness testimony is normally ***. Don't hate the player, read how stupid humanity is in this vetted article.

She may very well just look similar, or have just been in the vicinity. Evidence is all in how it stacks and is interpreted it is not infallible.

NOT saying she is innocent, I'm saying, don't get an opinion over something that's 99.99% hearsay so far where most of it could be shown wrong, making and solidifying an opinion now is tantamount to stupid as we make 90% of our minds up from a first impression and this would obviously skewer any further impressions later once we see evidence proving her innocence.

Take a minute, and think, you're condemning what might be an innocent party.

Not by default it isn't, there's misdemeanor assault charges on the books.

well, what else should we call it?

There ftfy.

Go home chaos, you're not fonewear.

Thats why i said MOST. Some jobs you cant have with certain things on your record.

So far i haven't seen her 'distributing' anything, merely voicing her opinion/belief. Even if she is an idiot'

go for it,


Thanks Chaos, where's fone when you need him to go on a feminist tirade?

Ah Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love.

If I was going to sport a fedora, I would do so with an ascot as well.

Administrative suspensions aren't uncommon and it's warranted to investigate the report of HIPAA or policy violations. Firing her simply because she's accused to a crime would be BS.

Assuming that she actually violated HIPAA. If she posted the x-rays online but didn't include any personally identifiable information, she might not be punishable under HIPAA rules.

However, regardless of HIPAA findings, I doubt that the hospital will retain her services. In the very least, they'll axe her just to save face.

They do? I was pretty sure they did so pretty liberally...

That is what would make it a hipaa violation, not the xray itself.

If that's true, then she's screwed.

Personally, even after zooming, I can't read the text on the toolbar. For all I know, that could just be the name of the application.

It'd be one thing if I knew the name of the victims in the assault so I could compare the text, but I can't seem to find them anywhere - they've most likely been suppressed.

-edit- Nevermind, I misunderstood, I thought the x-rays were related to the attack. I didn't realize that was a separate issue.

I will say though, just looking at the tweeted picture, it's a stretch to link that to homophobic hatred.

Perhaps the patient actually was cleaning out the gutters of his house in the rain, slipped, fell, and broke his ***.

I'll be writing her letters in prison...

I was speaking to physicians and nurses about this who work in hospitals. It's a HIPAA violation regardless. She doesn't have access to those documents. Access to those documents is strictly reserved for the treating physician/s.

So like my friend was saying last night, a bigger question is how did she access those files? Nurse or ER Tech, she isn't supposed to have access to those files.

But again like they are all saying her charges AND the posting of the x-ray/ct scans really are grounds for termination and revocation of her license. It goes back to moral conduct, the hospital has the right to terminate staff over immoral conduct outside of work. The state has the right to revoke licenses over immoral conduct. That's the way it's been forever medical practitioners are held to a higher moral standard.

I'm not particularly sure if that's a HIPAA violation for a nurse/tech to see your xray when they're usually the one who takes it...

Hell when I was working for the hospital I was allowed access to my own records, I could have gotten into others but was only allowed into my own.

I looked up the picture they took of a laceration at one point. Stainless steel cuts the skin right open.

X-ray techs take the x-ray.

Hipaa is widely misunderstood. Here's an example when it comes to patient information. On a diet order, you generate a tray card for a patient. The tray card is considered public because it will be accessible by anyone in a communal area like a cafeteria or communal dining area. On that card you can place things like general diet orders, you can say "nectar thick liquid" because it is not patient specific medical information. You can't however put "mechanical soft" as it is identifiable patient information. An xray is not identifiable unless it is embedded with patient information, even a patient number is not because it is a reference to a private network resource. Either you asked the question wrong or your friend is misinformed. Posting an xray itself is not strictly a hipaa violation.

She's not supposed to have access to those files, only the treating physician of that particular patient is supposed to have access to those files. That's the HIPAA violation. Also your circumventing my second point about the moral conduct.

Again the hospital and the state have the right to take action on the grounds of "immoral conduct."

EDIT: They are not misinformed. I discussed this with a physician(doesn't work hospital), a respiratory therapist, a RN and a NP. They all agreed, only the treating physician is supposed to have access to those files.

Access is a different issue, HIPAA doesn't specifically dictate that only treating physicians are to have access to medical files. Anyone who has a legitimate need can have access to all or part of patient files. A good example would be a repair technician. If viewing the result image is part of the diagnostic process they use, then they are legally allowed to access those. It says she's an ER tech, that could easily mean she's an Xray tech and has access to the images because she takes the dang things. That would not constitute a HIPAA violation. Saving an image with no individually identifiable patient information, again, is not a HIPAA violation, though it is likely a policy violation. And distributing that image would not be a HIPAA violation. In the same sense that a doctor can publish medical information using a fake patient name and redacting any identifiable information.

I've taken 2 classes on HIPAA, which is more than most medical professionals have, and it is very specific about what information is and isn't considered "identifiable". HIPAA is fairly plain English, moreso than most regulations, and you can verify the specifics yourself if you care to.