ILNews

DTCI: Protection of drug and alcohol treatment records

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-drenth-marianLawyers representing plaintiffs and defendants in civil tort actions will eventually be challenged with protecting their client’s alcohol and drug treatment records from disclosure. In most cases, a person’s alcohol and drug treatment records are considered confidential and non-discoverable. The Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a) (Westlaw 2011), bars access to an individual’s alcohol and drug treatment records and relieves a party to litigation from answering questions regarding such treatment.

dtci-schumann-dane Congress passed the PHSA to provide addicts an incentive to seek treatment by eliminating the threat of an adverse party’s use of their efforts to obtain treatment against them. The act’s penalties provision for violations clearly illustrates Congress’ intent to vigorously protect substance abuse treatment records. Carr v. Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation, 933 F. Supp. 485(W.D. Penn. 1996).

The PHSA provides that patient records pertaining to substance abuse treatment are confidential and not discoverable, subject to limited exceptions. Confidentiality applies if the records sought to be disclosed were obtained from a program “which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by any department or agency of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a) (Westlaw 2011).

The PHSA’s regulations dictate that this privilege extends to any information about alcohol and drug abuse that patients obtained by a “federally assisted” program. Coverage includes, but is not limited to, those treatment or rehabilitation programs, employee assistance programs, programs within general hospitals, school-based programs, and private practitioners who hold themselves out as providing – and do provide – alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral for treatment. However, these regulations do not apply, for example, to emergency room personnel referring a patient to the intensive care unit for an apparent overdose. The privilege still applies if the provider is making the referral to obtain a substance abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral and they are identified as providing such services.

Substance abuse treatment records are presumed confidential. Therefore, the bar to overcome this presumption is high. Mosier v. American Home Patient, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1214-15 (N.D. Fla. 2001). In Mosier, a federal court held that there was no good cause where a defendant-employer requested production of a former employee’s treatment records to defend against a wrongful termination suit, despite the court’s acknowledgment that the records were highly relevant and important to the employer’s defense. The defendant-employer presented testimony from a supervisor that he suspected the employee was drunk at work because the employee appeared disheveled, smelled like alcohol, exhibited strange behavior, turned in work late, and the employee was impaired at the end of his tenure. The court found that this evidence was insufficient to support a finding of good cause to release the employee’s prior alcohol treatment records for treatment that was received approximately six years before his employment. Mosier, 170 F. Supp. 2d. at 1214.

What is required to obtain disclosure of alcohol and drug treatment records? 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 delineates the process for disclosure of patient records, requiring that the person seeking disclosure has a legally recognized interest in the records. A subpoena alone is insufficient. A court order is necessary. Further, disclosure may be ordered under 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 only if the court determines that good cause exists. To make this determination, the court must find that (1) other ways of obtaining the information are unavailable or would be ineffective and (2) the public interest and need for the disclosure outweigh the potential injury to the patient, the physician-patient relationship and the treatment services.

If a court orders disclosure of a litigant’s treatment records, restrictions will apply on that disclosure pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 2.12. Upon granting such an order, the court must determine which portions of the records are necessary to fulfill the objective of the disclosure. In addition, the court must impose appropriate safeguards against unauthorized disclosure, limiting the disclosure to only those persons whose need for the information formed the basis for the order.

This is a brief synopsis of the PHSA, which is an extensive act. Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the sections of the PHSA when faced with discovery seeking the disclosure of an individual’s alcohol and drug treatment records in order to properly enforce the privileges provided by the act.•

__________

Marian Drenth is a partner at O’Neill McFadden & Willett in Dyer, Ind., and sits on the DTCI board of directors. She concentrates her practice in civil litigation with an emphasis in health care litigation. Her practice also includes employment law and general liability. Dane Schumann is an associate at O’Neill McFadden & Willett. He focuses his practice on health care and general liability. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • wrongful disclosure happens often
    I am a long time supporter of the rights of recovering people. I read a letter to the editor in a newspaper, the letter was written by the current judge . It was a letter about his campaign for reelection.He chose to write abou a recent case and his sentencing the defendant ( state vt Man's surname) There had been some ba cklash by his opponent and the smal l town gossip, because thean hadt a long history of substance related crime. The judge wrote in this public letter that he sentenced this man to a n iinpatientsubstance abuse treatment center to help a felon break the cycle of his addiction. He wrote that tjean was doing well in his treatment. This is a small town, and although he identified the manby last name only, the judge knew he identified this man . I was shocled that an Indiana judge would do this. This man is new to recovery, trying to, literally , save his life. This disclosure was made to gain votes. I was also shocked that a newspaper would print this in a paper. Short of the judge riding a horse through town with a bullhorn, I do not know how he could have made a bigger disclosure What can be done in a situation such as this. Is the judge or the newspaper responsible?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT