IN THE HEALTH CARE ALTERNATIVE
RESOLUTION OFFICE OF FLORIDA
NORTHCHASE NORTH PARCEL 45
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Florida not-for-profit corporation, Claimant,
-vs-
LINDSEY RICHMOND, SPTC
480 Central Region Road
Suit B-3
Fort Myers, FL 32666
Defendant Healthcare Provider
__________________________________
FACTS
1. The claimant is a resident of the State of Florida and all services were given to her by the Defendant in the State of Florida.
2. The Defendant is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor that is licensed by the State of Florida and regularly continue engaging in the practice of psychotherapy. Defendant sustains her principle office at 480 Central Region Road, Suite B-3, Fort Myers, Florida 32666.
3. The Claimant was a patient of the Defendant during the period of February, 2013 through May, 2013.
4. The Defendant owed a duty to Claimant to help sustain confidentiality and protect the affluent mental health records
…show more content…
That on or about August 14, 2014, and continuing then thereafter the Defendant negligently breached the Florida Confidentiality of Medical Records Act codified in Florida Code 766-102 to 766-203 of the Health General Article and psychologist patient privilege codified at Fl. Code 766-380 of the courts and Judicial Proceedings Article by disclosing and introducing confidential and privileged diagnoses and treatment records of Claimant, including text messages exchanged between the parties, email, medical records, photos, without patients authorization nor consent. Said records were disclosed in the District Court of Florida for Seminole County and were the direct and proximate cause of all of the injuries sufficed and damages that was complained of
trust and confidence.” Cobb v. Pennsylvania Life Ins. Co., 215 N.C.App. 268, 278, 715 S.E.2d 541, 550 (2011). Contrast these relationships with cases where the Court has found the existence of a fiduciary duty or relationship: where a defendant took advantage of his relationship with his ill brother (Terry v. Terry, 302 N.C. 77, 273 S.E.2d 674 (1981)); where a defendant took advantage of his relationship with his wife (Link v. Link, 278 N.C. 181, 179 S.E.2d 697 (1971)); or where a defendant son took advantage of his relationship with his mother (Vail v. Vail, 233 N.C. 109, 63 S.E.2d 202 (1951)).
She said she thinks she was on drugs at the time. Ms. Morgan has a valid case with the agency dated 7/18/2015 for Dependency. Ms. Morgan is diagnosed with Bipolar and Schizophrenia. Ms. Morgan is not taking medication at this time and she is not receiving mental health care. Ms. Morgan is supposed to receive care through Central City Mental Health Clinic, but missed her appointment and never rescheduled.
In the Shea v. Esensten case, there was a lot of information that was compared to different laws. “Mr. Shea's doctor persuaded Mr. Shea, who was then forty years old, that he was too young and did not have enough symptoms to justify a visit to a cardiologist. A few months later, Mr. Shea died of heart failure” (Shea v. Esensten, 1997). The given information brought into question, why would the doctor not make a referral for Mr. Shea? “Mr. Shea had been an employee of Seagate Technologies, Inc. (Seagate) for many years.
On July 14, 2002 Defendant Jackson decided to break into victim home. The victim went out for about an hour on the morning and returned home to find defendant in his room. The victim threw his keys at defendant, and defendant ran and obnubilated in a closet. The victim pulled on the closet door, but defendant was prehending the doorknob on the inside. Defendant then relinquished the doorknob and sprang from the closet; the victim prehended him and they fell together onto the bed, breaking it.
California Supreme Court Clarifies Long Term Care Act’s Application to Release of Confidential Information The California Supreme Court has clarified the application of the Long-Term Care Act’s disclosure requirements in consideration of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328’s general prohibition against the release of information contained in the course of providing treatment to mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals. In State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the disclosure requirements of the Long-Term Care Act (LTCA) or Welfare and Institutions Code section 5328 applied where a public records request was made for health records. The case involved the Center for Investigative Reporting, a news organization investigating the treatment of mentally ill and developmentally disabled in state owned health care facilities, which issued a public records request to the Department of Public Health (DPH) for copies of all citations issued to the facilities it was investigating.
I find myself writing you asking for guidance within the walls of the 12th Justice System. My daughter continues to be in the middle of ledge issues with the adopted mother of my granddaughter. However, this is a family matter, in which we will have to figure out on our end.
Mr. Thelaw’s conduct would likely be considered extreme and outrageous when he manipulated Ms. Smartpants emotions in front of the class. Courts have reasoned that a defendant cannot deliberately attempt to manipulate the emotions of a plaintiff, for a perceived advantage over a plaintiff who is susceptible to emotional distress. KOVR-TV, Inc., 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 435; McDaniel, 281 Cal.
MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,
They filmed patents without their consent, which violate patient right of privacy. b. How the violation impacted the patient; and patients were on social media without knowing it. How
To start with, it can be shown that imposed during the sentencing process are 2 of them effective and ineffective in protecting the rights. For example, the case of R. v. Fernando set a record for the next generation sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. It was thought that Fernando was guilty of wounding his de facto wife. An implication of this case is massive, as it established the principles , which take reduced economic circumstances and a big loss of customer law into account when sentencing indigenous offenders. This, testifying to the of the law, in protecting the own belief of offenders.
According to Edwin (2008) therapeutic privilege' refers to the withholding of information by the clinician
1.0 INTRODUCTION The Parliament passed the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act A1378) and the Royal assent was obtained on June 2 of 2010. Act A1378 was gazetted on June 10 of 2010. In regards to the operation of plea bargaining as set out in Act A1378, there are few features to be noticed. Firstly, plea bargaining is allowed in all offences regardless of their gravity, including offences which carry the mandatory death sentence.
Primary Responsibility: The counselor principal obligation is to promote the prosperity of the clients with the reverence and dignity. This is the foundation for the therapists with maintaining their righteousness and obligations toward assisting the participants to adhere to the collaboration with the development of the client’s treatment plan. Overall, this approach is essential for the practitioners to enhanced their trust with the clients that were establishes, especially, with maintaining their responsibilities to the individual’s treatment objectives. NAADAC I-2 Informed Consent:
You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.
Sources of Law: Common law finds its foundation in precedents, rulings and decisions made by past judges Stare decisis (let the decision stand) is a key concept. But judges have developed the means to change or adapt the common law by modifying, distinguishing or overruling precedent case law. The common law is not written down in a law book but is collected in volumes that contain the reports of legal decisions. Each case is given its own legal identity through a system of numbered citations. 2.