 kalphearionIn nomine PatriPremium
join:2003-11-08
Broomfield, CO | No case This guy does not have a case. He is mad because he is on a publicly viewed site stating he has an STD and cheated. He just shot himself in the foot, because now a hell of a lot more people know about the site.
On the other hand, if he actually does not have a STD, and the site is saying he does, then he will have somewhat of a case. |
|
|
|
| He has a case even if he does have an STD. New federal regulations prohibit dissemination of medical information without consent. There are huge fines involved in these types of cases. The owner of this site better get the checkbook ready. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Very good point...
Since this person is a lawyer as well, could this also be considered slander/liabel. If this persons reputation is 'damaged' by false accusations, and has possible financial or employment issues as a result, he should be able to sue at least the accuser, and possibly the site as well. |
|
 pb5kCan't TriforcePremium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ | reply to kalphearion
said by kalphearion: He just shot himself in the foot, because now a hell of a lot more people know about the site. True enough, but the plaintiff in this case is a criminal lawyer so I'm sure he's considered this angle. Additionally depending on the jurisdiction (tricky with a web based medium I admit) there may be "per se" defamation - in some cases accusing a person of having an STD or being unchaste, damages are automatically assumed to be present. That would make his case easier to prove.
I knew when I saw this site a while ago that it was a legal time bomb. As others have said, does the site have any way of establishing the truth of the statements made by its posters?
--
"It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours." -- Harry S Truman
|
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
1 edit | reply to Goldman
said by Goldman:He has a case even if he does have an STD. New federal regulations prohibit dissemination of medical information without consent. There are huge fines involved in these types of cases. The owner of this site better get the checkbook ready. This is not necessarily correct; this is not a hospital or a clinic giving out this information. I assume this lady is not accessing her x-sweeties medical files and passing out this information, that is illegal. If however she was indeed infected by this clown, and can back it up then she can yell to the moon and stars. What she is in fact doing is releasing her own medical history which she has the perfect right to do. Of course there is enough ambiguity in the HIPAA laws to make the out come in court up for grabs. I have worked with medical records for several decades and this is how I understand things to work. There is one issue that may have a baring on this case. If this wondering penis knew he was infected he is wide open to get nailed on several levels both civil and criminal.
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to pb5k
said by pb5k: in some cases accusing a person of having an STD or being unchaste, damages are automatically assumed to be present. That would make his case easier to prove. Indeed: Many jurisdictions make allegations of having a "loathsome disease" (that particular term) a special case.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
2 edits | reply to Transmaster
said by Transmaster:said by Goldman:He has a case even if he does have an STD. New federal regulations prohibit dissemination of medical information without consent. There are huge fines involved in these types of cases. The owner of this site better get the checkbook ready. This is not necessarily correct; this is not a hospital or a clinic giving out this information. I assume this lady is not accessing her x-sweeties medical files and passing out this information, that is illegal. If however she was indeed infected by this clown, and can back it up then she can yell to the moon and stars. What she is in fact doing is releasing her own medical history which she has the perfect right to do. BS, stop with your misinformation.
She is accusing somebody else and releasing somebody else's assumedmedical recoreds.
Of course there is enough ambiguity in the HIPAA laws to make the out come in court up for grabs.
No,l it's a quite clear case: she has no right to release this information on her own.
I have worked with medical records for several decades and this is how I understand things to work. There is one issue that may have a baring on this case. If this wondering penis knew he was infected he is wide open to get nailed on several levels both civil and criminal.
Contrary to your beliefs - apparently your alleged former workplace did not have too much effect on your knowledge - he has a winning case if he did not allowed his medical records to be published.
Whether he'll be sued for transmitting STD, if he has any, is an entirely different case. |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | 
Carl Rove is thumbing his nose at you Kamm.......watch your blood pressure |
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. |
|
| reply to Goldman
Your very smart.
T.Hollis |
|
| reply to kamm
Unfortunately, there is no case. The website is not liable. The women that post these messages r not liable either. There is NO LAW that forbids an individual to SCREAM OUT (in print or in media) that one has a small pee-pee, one has cancer, one has aids, etc. It's just not slander.
The website (and shareholders and principals) are definitely not liable at all.
Even if he sues the women who posted this...there probably a bunch of 'low budget' chicks that have no money. And any judgement would be ZERO. |
|
