InsanePeopleFacebook

I know lying isn't against the law. (Although I'm neither a legal nor medical professional.) I meant she would be deterred from suing because the extent of her lies would have to be aired in court, in public, in order to prove the nurse revealed information.

In the case you linked, the nurse posted information about a rare case (ergo easily identified) whereas in OP's situation the publicly identifying information had already been revealed by the mother and the nurse didn't specify any new facts about the case itself. She might still get in trouble but it's less cut and dried than the case in your link. Imvho.

I think something most people don't know is that ANY piece of information that can be used to identify a specific patient is a HIPAA violation. What you posted are definitive pieces of information that qualify but it's not limited to those.

I think the replier will have a hard time defending themselves if they are indeed a healthcare employee that has knowledge of the patient. Doesn't specifically say who the patient is but does confirm it's poster's kid. If that's easily identifiable via the same social media platform IDK what they'd hide behind.

Confirming someone is a patient without consent is a violation.

Edit: but the mom did open the door I suppose so maybe not.

Right, the medical records were revealed, and probably the name was revealed. This discussion is taking place in context, so if a reader can scroll up and see the kid's name in the previous post, now they know something about what happened to that kid medically on that day at that time at that place.

In these types of situations you have to look at other readily information and use common sense to determine what a reader could find out.

Because there's often extraneous information available to outsiders, any medical employee worth their salt would decline to give any information about any patient without running it through the proper channels to make sure everything is anonymized or a waiver is signed.

1. the judge wouldn't be in bumble fuck, TN or anywhere else other than in a civil rights case brought by the department of health and human services in DC. You'd be charged in federal court.
2. disclosing information that relates to the "a) treatment, b) payment, or c) operations" (not medical procedures, that's under "treatment" - this is things like quality assurance and training) need to have a client authorization for disclosure.

Strictly speaking, this nurse confirmed the identity of a specific individual that received a _specific treatment_ at a specific facility (her employer) to a public forum, all without the authorization of the client. Any compliance office would hang the nurse out to dry, even as a proactive measure, to mitigate a potential unauthorized disclosure claim.

I already know since it was hammered home each class for the entire course.

Fair point