Question

Instructions:

Read each case, 1 - 7, and choose which forensic psyche identification goes with that particular case. Explain your rationale for your choice. Submit your assignment as an attachment.

Case # 4 A staff member of a medical practice discussed HIV testing procedures with a patient in the waiting room, thereby disclosing PHI to several other individuals. Also, computer screens displaying patient information were easily visible to patients

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Case # 5 In August 2012, K.I., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was reportedly experiencing auditory hallucinations that were commanding him to kill himself. He was emergently admitted to Walden Behavioral Care, a psychiatric treatment facility in Massachusetts. K.I. was subsequently committed to the facility for a three-day evaluation period, during which he was examined and treated by psychiatrist David Brendel, who filed a petition for K.I.'s continued commitment due to risk to safety.

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Case # 6 Arsenaux v. Arsenaux Plaintiff wife sued for a separation from her husband on the grounds of abandonment. Alleging freedom from fault, she sought alimony, and additionally sought custody of a minor child and child support. The husband reconvened seeking a divorce on the grounds of adultery. In order to establish his claim, the husband sought to prove that his wife had become pregnant some two years following his vasectomy and had thereafter obtained an abortion. His effort was frustrated by the wife's successful assertion in the trial court that the medical records of her alleged abortion fell within the health care provider privilege for civil cases and her constitutional right to privacy. The husband successfully appealed from the trial court's judgment in favor of the wife.' The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a four to three decision, reversed and held that the medical record in question is a communication under the explicit wording of the health care provider statute and, as such, should not be admitted. The court determined that the case did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to the privilege. The court also based its decision upon a consideration of the wife's constitutional right to privacy.' The three dissenters argued that the wife had waived her privilege to have the evidence excluded by alleging freedom from fault.

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Case # 7 A hospital employee did not observe minimum necessary requirements when she left a telephone message with the daughter of a patient that detailed both her medical condition and treatment plan. An investigation also indicated that the confidential communications requirements were not followed, as the employee left the message at the patient’s home telephone number, despite the patient’s instructions to contact her through her work number.

A. Competency to Stand Trial

B. M’naghten Rule

C. HIPAA

D. Involuntary Commitment

E. Privilege communication

F. Tarasoff Rule

Rationale:

Answer 1

- Case 4 is a case of HIPAA violation . In this case there is breech of the patients health information .

- Case 5 is a case of involuntary commitment .Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is ordered by a court into treatment in a psychiatric hospital or in the community.

- Case 6 is a privilege communication . In the law of evidence, a privilege is a rule of evidence that allows the holder of the privilege to refuse to disclose information or provide evidence about a certain subject or to bar such evidence from being disclosed or used in a judicial or other proceeding.

- Case 7 is a case of HIPAA ( health insurance portability and accountability act) violation , breech of confidentiality .