Hypothetical situation.
Well known actor, Mel Gibson, goes into a plastic surgeon’s office in Los Angeles. He is escorted into the backroom by a team from the Dr’s. Office including “Jane”, a medical assistant.
After the procedure, he, and a member of his family, approach the counter to pay for the procedure. The medical assistant, Jane is giving him instructions as he pays cash for the service. He pays “Ryan” the receptionist.
Mel Gibson flies privately to Sacramento for rehab…..
Meanwhile, back at the office – the office manager, Samantha, notices the payment is missing. She asks the staff “where’s the cash”? No-one knows.
Frustrated – Samantha makes a call to the police to begin an investigation of “theft”.
Receptionist Ryan, and medical assistant, Jane, are both questioned and complete statements to police. The case is filed, but not solved, and eventually closed.
However, on the same day this happens – a guy named Dave riding his bike along a road nearby to the private airstrip used by lots of celebrities in Los Angeles was hit and run off the road by a fast moving car. As Dave sits in the ditch, with a broken leg, looking toward the car, he sees Mel Gibson and another person exit the vehicle, look around, exchange words, then quickly get back into the car and drive off.
A few minutes later a passerby sees Dave crying out for help and calls an Ambulance.
While Dave is in the hospital a police officer comes to visit and fills out a report. Dave shares that he was run off the road by a vehicle containing Mel Gibson, and another unknown person.
The police officer takes his statement, then contacts the representatives of Mel Gibson.
Mel’s representative says he was not in Los Angeles, and it couldn’t have been him. The rep says he was in Sacramento that day, and provides witnesses to corroborate the story.
The police officer goes to Dave and tells him it couldn’t have been Mel Gibson for all the aforementioned reasons. But Dave is sure it was him, and angry that the police were dismissive of his claim. The police drop the investigation because nothing exists to prove any validity to Dave’s claim.
A few months go by, and Dave happens to be in the same area as the Plastic Surgeon’s office having lunch. He overhears a conversation in the next booth with two diners eating lunch.
They are talking about the missing money investigation, and Dave’s ears perk up when he hears one of them say they remember it well because Mel Gibson was there for a procedure. Dave gets up and introduces himself, not saying anything about his prior accident, and asks who they are. One of the people is Jane, the medical assistant, the other her cousin visiting from out of town.
Dave asks Jane if she happens to remember the date. She’s not exactly sure, but is able to give the day of the week, a Friday, and the approximate date from a few months ago.
Bingo. Dave checks his calendar, and he was hit on a Friday. This is the proof he needs.
He calls back the police officer who took his original statement/report.
The police officer does not make it a top priority but by the end of the week indeed had gone to the Dr’s office and asked to see Jane. Samantha and Jane both come to the desk and the officer asks if Mel Gibson was in the office on the date in question.
Jane looks at Samantha and says, “um, I don’t know if we are allowed to give that information”. Samantha says “She’s right, even if he was here, we are not allowed to discuss patient information”, citing HIPPA law (Health Information Patient Privacy Act). She continues the only way we could discuss is with either a) A court order,… or, B) a release from the patient.
Hmmm.. The officer thinks probably nothing – but, looks through his notes, finds the prior person, and calls back to the Gibson representative he spoke to earlier. The officer explains the claim, and asks if Mr. Gibson would allow the people (meaning give the release) in the Dr. Office to answer the question. The representative says unlikely but he will ask, and call the police officer back by the end of the week.
Immediately the representative calls Gibson’s attorney, who in turn immediately files an injunction to seal the records of the Dr’s. office as it relates to his client.
The Dr. Office is served with the notification to seal, and the court order barring them from conversation. Both Samantha, Jane and all of the Dr. Office employees are named in the court order, as well as any of their representatives, friends, and the cousin whom Dave had noted at the restaurant.
A few days later the Gibson rep then calls back the police officer and informs him of the unwillingness to release, as well as the court order barring such medical records. etc.
The police officer is now a little more suspect of the Gibson story, and a little more sympathetic toward Dave. He goes to see Dave and explains the status.
Dave is furious.
But the police can do nothing and would need much more information to compel the district attorney to file compulsion motions to get the records unsealed and force Jane and Samantha to talk. He views it as an impossible task; After all there are people willing to corroborate the story of Gibson being in Sacramento. He shares that opinion with Dave.
Dave is furious as he looks at the hospital bills on his kitchen table. Frustrated and furious.
A few more days go by, and Dave’s phone rings. It’s the police officer. The cop shares that during meeting earlier in the day he and a fellow officer were having a cup of coffee. He happened to mention the “Dave Dilemma”. The other cop says “hey wait a minute, coincidentally, and unrelated, I had to fill out a report for stolen money from that office around the same time, and if my memory is right, one of the chicks mentioned the name “Gibson” at the counter”. He continues, “I took her statement and it should be on file”.
As the police officer relays the conversation, Dave’s mind begins to work. He says “hey what if I could get a copy of that police report, and it does mention Gibson, could that be enough to get the seals opened”?
The cop says it might. However, how would he [Dave] explain his knowledge of the existence of the report?
The cop then shares “we have a departmental policy that bars us from revealing content of any police report to anyone without going though the right process”. He continues, “that process goes through the Police Chief, and the Chief is good buddies with that actor, Mel Gibson. Mel does fundraisers for the Police Chief, and the Chief is tight with the political circle Gibson donates to”.
He continues: “I could get fired for sharing this information with you because that ain’t my case, and I have no way to open it, or access it, without it becoming a big effen deal”. “Because we are in Hollywood here, the celebrity types have major influence, and everyone in the dept has to sign lengthy affidavits swearing non-disclosure and privacy for them”.
Dave says: “hey man, fair enough – I don’t want this to become something you could be in trouble for, and I really appreciate you even taking the time to call me and tell me about it, you didn’t have to”.
Dave continues, “besides, I might be able to get the reports from a public records request”.
The next day, Dave calls and gets the information about how to access public records, who to call, what processes to follow, and how to get a copy for himself. After he finds out as much as he can, he fills out a Public Records Request (FOIA) and waits…
…. and waits…… and waits……. and waits…….
Nothing.
So he calls the records department and asks “what’s taking so long”? A supervisor takes over the call and says the “higher ups” have flagged those files and there is a note in the system not to discuss or release. You’ll have to go through them.
So Dave gets “them’s” name and phone number and calls “them”.
After a run around over the next several days he finally is speaking with the attorney who represents and advises the Police Dept Records Division.
The Police attorney claims the public records Dave is requesting fall under the protection of the previously filed court order which blocked access.
Now Dave is REALLY furious.
He gets an attorney.
How can the Police department claim a public criminal report can be hidden behind the shield of HIPPA law just because the criminal conduct being investigated took place in a Doctor’s office?
The stolen money report has NOTHING to do with Mel Gibson. The report has to do with investigation of theft. The statements within the report, while they might support Dave’s investigative needs, are not pertinent to the court order surrounding medical records of Mel Gibson. They are a totally separate issue.
Or are they?
That’s the question for you smart Treeper types.