'You're fine. You're vaccinated': Anti-vax Fox News host goes dead silent after co-host calls her out for vaccine status
'You're fine. You're vaccinated': Anti-vax Fox News host goes dead silent after co-host calls her out for vaccine status
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro went quiet after co-host Jessica Tarlov brought up her purported vaccine status.
You're viewing a single thread.
Wouldn't that be PHI disclosure in some fashion? I smell hyenas turning on each other and lawsuits blazing.
No, HIPAA only applies to people who work in the health sector or are associated with it. Anyone else, including journalists and media people don't have to follow these rules. They can talk about the healt status of others as they please. The only concern would be defamation but that's also only an issue if the statement is false.While HIPAA doesn't apply in this case, it's irrelevant. It could still be considered Publication of a Private Fact which is punishable under US law.
It's unlikely this would be successful but there is enough grounds for a lawsuit to not be thrown out immediately.
Is it still a private fact when Fox News has (or at least had in 2021) a well-publicized vaccine requirement for employees?
I don't think so. I also don't think that a reasonable person would be offended by having their vaccination status disclosed. So winning a potential lawsuit would be unlikely.
But I think there is enough grounds to at least have it go to trial. While claiming a HIPAA violation wouldn't even make it that far since it doesn't apply here.
The logic against HIPAA doesn't apply. Boebert claimed asking her on air was a violation so it was then spouted by every viewer after that.
There's also defamation per se which can apply to salacious details like HIV status and some other things I can't remember (that class was a long time ago and I spent all my time in title 26) where even if the info is true, it's still defamatory. I've only skimmed this article but I like generally Cornell Law Library.
I read through it but defamation per se still talks about false statements. The difference is that you don't have to prove damages.
But while reading up on it, turns out the first comment was indeed right. Publication of a Private Fact can be punishable even if the statement is true.It's very questionable wether the statement fulfills the requirements. It's already publicly known that FOX employees require vaccinations and it's doubtful disclosing this fact is offensive to a reasonable person but there is at least some potential here.
So then why do we have to watch those horrendous videos on the disclosure of PHI, even in non-related fields? I do it yearly and have been Clockwork-Orange-educated into knowing what it looks like, how it should be transmitted, etc.
It really makes me think the company would be liable in some way.
I believe that the non-disclosure applies to companies or individuals who have a relationship with a person as a client, or some other kind of business relationship. My doctor or insurance company has to protect my medical information, but if my neighbor finds out I'm rocking just one nut, he can tell anyone he wants.
Are you rocking one nut or are you slandering yourself?
Yes.
That would depend on your work. Maybe you are working for a company that is associated or a subcontractor with the health care industry.
An accountant overseeing the finances of a small clinic or a contractor doing renovations in a hospital both have to abide by HIPAA to a degree.
That only applies to medical professionals and insurance companies.
Heck no it doesn't. I've seen enough compliance videos to know it extends to companies. At the very least, Fox is liable if not the lady who knowingly said it. The only trick would be to prove she knew that she was disclosing PHI. Hence, I predict an apology of some sort (written or on cam) to clarify "she didn't know what she was doing" so they fend off the potential for that. Still, the corp would be liable but they probably have a floor or two of lawyers.
Nope.