Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sophiaofthrace on April 17, 2011 at 10:59am

No one in my family has Type 1 either, but I carry genes that make it more likely to develop Type 1. Having these genes does not mean a person will develop diabetes. Many Type 1s do not have relatives with Type 1 but have genes that made them more susceptible. Type 1 is not purely genetic though. Something else triggers those genes to cause them to act differently. Researchers are still trying to figure out what factors can trigger them- viruses, diet, childhood illnesses, vaccines, environmental pollution, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dickengel on April 18, 2011 at 7:50am

It looks like the summary on the ADA site was accurate - From the FAA site it says The FAA has established a policy that permits the special issuance medical certification of insulin-treated applicants for third-class medical certification. Consideration will be given only to those individuals who have been clinically stable on their current treatment regimen for a period of 6 months or more. Consideration is not being given for first- or second-class certification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jag1 on April 18, 2011 at 11:47am

Lynn, I question your contention that either of the employers did anything "illegal" here.

See this reference: LINK HERE

Let's assume that the previous employer did not find about Emily's diabetes through a confidential health-test - it undoubtedly came up in the course of everyday life, like excusing oneself to shoot up when going out to lunch together or declining to eat someone's birthday cake. So let's take that as a given - that the employer found out about Emily's diabetes in the course of everyday work life.

Now when the new employer calls to ask about Emily's work, are you saying that the previous employer is constrained from discussing something about Emily that he knows and that he found out in a non-confidential way? Can you give the law reference number for the violation you're suggesting?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jag1 on April 18, 2011 at 3:13pm

Lynne, I'm willing to agree with you if you can prove that you are correct. But without something to prove your case, I don't see it. What do you base this statement on: "If an employer knows something about an employee that's medically related, it's confidential, period."?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dickengel on April 18, 2011 at 3:19pm

When I searched on this a couple web sites had similiar cases and seemed to indicate that unless it was release of medical records that while it is inappropriate, its not illegal. I did not record the web sites sorry. But regardless, there was no harm and while we all agree it should not have been done, why does everyone want to sue?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SF Pete on April 18, 2011 at 2:02pm

HIPPA reaches pretty far. My partner and I worked in the same company for several years. We are actually married and I still had to have him give me a HIPPA release to discuss anything to do with his employment or health care situation. The fact that one employer told another prospective employer is pretty sketchy. He may know what he knows, but he hasn't been given authorization to disclose what he/she knows..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SF Pete on April 18, 2011 at 1:56pm

Your employer disclosed medical information? That is a violation of HIPPA. Get yourself a lawyer. There are all kind of claims here. Your medical information is yours alone to disclose as you see fit. It is illegal for that kind of disclosure to be made, and given the chance it might have affected your ability to retain gainful employment, this could have been a lot uglier for you than it was.

Your former employer had no business, no right, and a fiduciary duty to NOT disclose any of your medical information. I'm shocked. The dude violated federal privacy laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Elizabeth on April 18, 2011 at 2:17pm

As a middle manager, I agree with the above. I know a great deal about my subordinates' health and personal circumstances, simply as a function of having to approve their time off when they need medical attention. It is extremely clear to me, by virtue of the HIPAA disclosures I've seen and the training I was given by HR, that I cannot and should not discuss these factors with ANYONE unless the employee gives me authorization to do so, and I try to be scrupulous about that, even with my own boss. So yeah... I think Pete's right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jag1 on April 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

NO, Pete that is just plain wrong. The employer did not disclose confidential medical information - they discussed information that Emily had made public. If she hadn't made it public, then her boss wouldn't have known it. Please see my link in the previous post I made above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jag1 on April 18, 2011 at 10:39pm

Clearly she made it public to the people she works with. She wasn't surprised that her boss knew - because she has obviously discussed it with her boss. If it were private she would not have discussed it with her boss. So it is public, yes?

Well, yes, it is just an opinion off the internet. But then every person who posts an opinion here, including you and me, are just opinions off the internet too. The critical question you haven't answered, is WHAT LAW was broken?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Hearn on April 18, 2011 at 3:44pm

Sounds like a release of Protected Health Information to me. But I'm no lawyer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dickengel on April 18, 2011 at 5:06pm

from the reading i have done if the previous employer found the information from medical records or medical insurance or thru the hiring process, it is protected information. If the employer became aware of it thru the normal course of employment, then it may or may not be protected information. Don't you just love our legal system - clear as mud!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page