DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Physician-patient privilege waived in fraud probe

Posted on July 6, 2009 by Dissent

An Ohio Supreme Court ruling could erode certain confidentiality protections afforded to patients’ medical records, physicians say.

The case centered on whether a health insurer could discover patient records to support a billing fraud claim it brought against a doctor. Family physician William Schlotterer, DO, objected to providing his patients’ records to Medical Mutual of Ohio, saying the documents were protected by the physician-patient privilege unless the insurer obtained the patients’ consent.

The patients involved were not a party to the lawsuit, and the high court affirmed that, absent patients’ authorization, medical records are generally protected from disclosure under state law. Because Dr. Schlotterer’s patients already consented to release their medical information to Medical Mutual when they signed on for coverage, however, judges found the physician-patient privilege did not apply.

Read more in American Medical News.

The court opinion is available online (pdf). The case is Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← What About Former Employees?
LOC ID Thief Sentenced to Prison →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Alleged Geisinger hacker will defend himself pro se.
  • Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare reveals it was also impacted by Cerner/Legacy Oracle cyberattack
  • Hospital cyberattack investigation complete, no formal review needed
  • Largest Ever Seizure of Funds Related to Crypto Confidence Scams
  • IMPACT: 170 patients harmed as a result of Qilin’s ransomware attack on NHS vendor Synnovis
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • UBS reports data leak after cyber attack on provider, client data unaffected
  • Scania confirms insurance claim data breach in extortion attempt
  • Cybersecurity takes a big hit in new Trump executive order
  • Episource notifying 5.4 million patients of cyberattack in January

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data
  • DOJ Seeks More Time on Tower Dumps
  • Your household smart products must respect your privacy – including your air fryer
  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.