A rock and a hard place? Ministry of Defence | Defence News | MOD confirms loss of recruitment data

[Mary Hawking]

In message <20080122074528.20889.77878.Mailman@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,=20
ukcrypto-request@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes

>This is the sort of attitude we need here:
>
>Punitive damages permitted for unintentional disclosure of sensitive=20
>medical information
>
>In a three-to-two ruling, a New York state appellate court ruled that=20
>punitive damages can be awarded for the unintentional disclosure of=20
>sensitive medical information. In the case of Randi A.J. (Anonymous) v.=20
>Long Island Surgi-Center, No. 2005-04976 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. Sept.=20
>25, 2007), despite specific instructions from the twenty-year-old=20
>patient not to contact her at home, the center placed a call to the=20
>home to follow up on some post-operative blood tests and in so doing=20
>inadvertently released information to the patient=E2=80=99s mother that=20
>allowed the mother to determine that her daughter had received an=20
>abortion. The court concluded that punitive damages are available where=20
>the breach of patient confidentiality is the result of =E2=80=9Cwillful or=
=20
>wanton negligence or recklessness,=E2=80=9D and awarding such damages woul=
d=20
>=E2=80=9Cdeter future reprehensible conduct.=E2=80=9D The court also noted=
 numerous=20
>other instances where the surgery center had not protected patient=20
>privacy, as well as the fact that the center had insufficient privacy=20
>policies and procedures.

Sometimes you just can't win!
If the surgi-centre had *not* followed up on the post-operative blood=20
tests, they would have been held to be negligent as well!

However, it was inevitable that this situation would arise sooner or=20
later and the Surgi-centre should have had clear policies on how to=20
manage it in place and known to both patients and staff.

Mary Hawking
--=20
Mary Hawking