I also saw this on a random google search of Stephen Nagler.
It would appear that both he and Dr. Chung are very unstable
'doctors'.
Be leery of where you take any medical advice from.
h1
<<<<<<<<<Capt Ron,
The courts are pretty clear on this. My reading of the
archives is that Dr Nagler commented on the contents of
your chart. To be precise, he stated, " And if Mr. Yoli
chooses to make it the business of this board and
starts posting passages from it here on ast, then he
can be sure I will return the favor - it's all on disk.
Very easy to do. And believe me - it ain't pretty." The
other day, and please correct me if I am wrong, he
called you an alcoholic. I have to wonder if your
records contained something regarding liking to toss a
few back after a rough day at sea, and he might have
considered any discussion of your drinking to form the
opinion that you had a drinking problem. Pure
speculation on my part.
Any doctor that would do this, I believe should come under
scrutiny. I'd find out where the law stands on this and how
the GA
Medical Licensing Board feels about all this. They can be
reached at:
Composite State Board of Medical Examiners Attn: Ms. Gladys
Henderson, Complaints Unit 2 Peachtree Street, N.W., 10th
Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 PH: (404) 657-6487 FX: (404)
656-9723 [email hidden]
No Dr Nagler, none of this has been funny at all.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF GEORGIA
CASE NO. S99A1490
REBECCA LYNN KING, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF GEORGIA, Appellee.
BRIEF OF AMICUS THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
I. IDENTIFICATION AND INTEREST OF AMICUS
Amicus the Medical Association of Georgia ("MAG"😉 submits
this brief in response to this Court's Order of May 1, 2000.
MAG appreciates the request for its input and the
opportunity to be of assistance to the Court.
MAG is a non-profit, voluntary professional association
of Georgia physicians. MAG was founded in 1849, is
affiliated with the American Medical Association and is
the largest physicians' association in Georgia.
Presently, MAG has over 7,500 members - more than 5,000
of whom are physicians actively practicing medicine in
the State of Georgia. MAG is an active advocate for
Georgia physicians and their patients. While the issues
under review by this Court present serious concerns for
physicians and how they practice medicine in Georgia, the
issues are far more important to Georgia patients.
Indeed, the policy concerns that underlie the historical
right to privacy in medical records focus on obtaining
the best possible treatment for patients and underscore
the importance of these issues to patients.
The interest of MAG in this issue is (1) to protect the well-
established privacy interests of patients in physician-
patient relationships and the records arising out of those
relationships; and, (2) to promote adoption of a clear-cut
and easily applied test for the production of medical
records in response to a subpoena that protects the privacy
rights described above, allows physicians to respond
appropriately to such subpoenas without risk of liability,
and protects the legitimate interests of the State and
private party litigants in obtaining such records in an
appropriate case.
In undertaking this analysis, MAG has attempted to go beyond
the positions taken and authorities cited by the parties and
the Georgia Hospital Association in its previously filed
amicus brief in the belief that reiteration of previous
arguments and analysis will be of little use to the Court.
II. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
There is a customary and common law right of confidentiality
or privacy in the physician-patient relationship and in the
medical records emanating from this unique relationship. The
right of confidentiality is steeped in the history of
western civilization and founded on sound public policy that
should not be abrogated. This right, and the policy on which
it is based, dates back to the time of Hippocrates as
recognized both in federal and Georgia caselaw.
There is also a constitutional right to privacy in medical
records. There is a well-established right to privacy in
medical records under the due process clause of the federal
constitution. That substantive federal constitutional right
carries with it a procedural right to notice and a right to
be heard before one's medical records are produced. The
existence of that federal constitutional right of privacy in
medical records is important for two reasons. First, a
federal constitutional right to privacy must be enforced by
this Court under the Supremacy Clause and binding precedent
from the United States Supreme Court, whether or not such a
right exists under the state constitution. Second, this
Court has repeatedly held that the privacy right in the
Georgia Constitution is broader and affords greater
protection to the privacy rights of individuals than its
federal counterpart. Thus, the existence of privacy
protection for medical records under the federal
constitution necessarily implies that such protection exists
under the broader Georgia constitutional privacy right.
Finally, even aside from the ample federal authority
establishing a constitutional right to privacy in medical
records and implying the existence of such a right under the
Georgia Constitution, there is Georgia authority not cited
by either party or in the now-vacated opinion(s) that
supports such a right under the Georgia Constitution. A
right to privacy in medical records exists under both the
Georgia and the federal constitution.
As this Court has held, the right to privacy is a
fundamental right. Thus, once the existence of a
constitutional privacy right in medical records is
established, the proper test to be applied to a statute
limiting that right is whether the limitation serves a
compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to
effectuate only that compelling interest. Unless O.C.G.A. §
24-9-40 is construed so as to require notice to patients and
an opportunity to be heard before the production of medical
records pursuant to subpoena, then these statutes are not
narrowly tailored to effectuate only the compelling state
interest. That conclusion is mandated by a comparison to
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-34(c), which governs requests for production
of medical records. Section 9-11-34(c) is a model of
procedural due process, requiring notice, a chance to
object, and judicial resolution of objections before medical
records are produced. The same safeguards could easily have
been incorporated into O.C.G.A. § 24-9-40. Because § 9-11-
34(c) serves the same compelling interest but is more
narrowly drawn to protect the same privacy right, it is
clear that O.C.G.A. § 24-9-40 is not narrowly drawn to
protect the fundamental privacy right in medical records.
This constitutional defect must be remedied, either by
striking down the statute and awaiting legislative
correction of the deficiencies, or by judicially requiring
notice and an opportunity to be heard upon all subpoenas for
medical records, perhaps under the aegis of defining an
"appropriate" subpoena as suggested by now-vacated
concurrence of Justice Carley.
III. ANALYSIS AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
A. The Right To Confidentiality In The Physician-Patient
Relationship Is Venerable And Founded In Sound Policy
Considerations
One of the medical profession's chief ethical obligations is
to hold in confidence all patient information acquired
during the course of treatment. For over two thousand years,
the Hippocratic Oath has called upon physicians to maintain
the confidentiality of patient information. The translation
of the Hippocratic oath adopted by MAG states as to
confidentiality that:
[B]hatever, in connection with my professional service,
or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the
life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I
will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be
kept secret.
Caselaw recognizes that the Hippocratic oath imposes a duty
on physicians to maintain the privacy of their patients. See
e.g. Orr v. Sievert, 162 Ga. App. 677, 292 S.E.2d 548 (1982)
("because of the Hippocratic oath . . . a doctor has a
professional and contractual duty to protect the privacy of
his clients."😉; Hammonds v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 243
F. Supp. 793, 801 (N.D. Ohio 1965) ("Almost every member of
the public is aware of the promise of discretion contained
in the Hippocratic Oath, and every patient has a right to
rely upon this warranty of silence."😉.
<snip>>>>>>>>>