videographer rights on a fire scene

[xchief23]

Will your police really remove people?

I was on the scene, personally involved, and witnessed a medical doctor get arrested for interference on the scene of a child struck by a vehicle. Paramedic was attempting to tube the kid and we were having a heck of a time trying to manage the kid's airway. The doctor was insistent that we just transport to a hospital about 10 miles away. The medic told him we weren't leaving until he had a tube. Doc said "I'm a doctor, you'll do what I tell you". Medic asked if he was medic command; Doc said no. Medic asked if he was going to ride in with us to the hospital, Doc again said no. Medic said then I'm in charge here and we're not leaving until this kid has an airway, easier to get one here than in the back of a moving ambulance. Doc grabbed the medic's shirt and said for us to load up and go. Medic turned to the municipal police officer and said "he's interfering with my care". On went the handcuffs and Doc watched the medic get a tube from the back seat of a police cruiser.

So, yes, the police really will remove people.

[FWDbuff]

Will your police really remove people?

Why wouldnt they?

[firepiper1]

1. ANYTHING, and I repeat, ANYTHING is "fair game" from ANY public right-of-way, including streets, public sidewalks, etc. As long as you are not within a safety zone/perimeter as established by the Incident Commander, they may NOT stop you from photographing anything, and this includes patients of an auto extrication, their faces, or the faces of any responders.

I have to caution you on that train of thought. HIPAA Privacy Rules guarantee a patient's right to total privacy, including forbidding having their photo taken without their consent if their identity and their injuries can be identified.

[nmfire]

I have to caution you on that train of thought. HIPAA Privacy Rules guarantee a patient's right to total privacy, including forbidding having their photo taken without their consent if their identity and their injuries can be identified.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with it. You obviously don't even know what HIPPA stands for let alone what it means. Like most people, you throw it around having not clue what it even means. Your entire statement is completely wrong and total bull****.

[firepiper1]

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with it. You obviously don't even know what HIPPA stands for let alone what it means. Like most people, you throw it around having not clue what it even means. Your entire statement is completely wrong and total bull****.

Easy there cowboy! First of all, its HIPAA, not HIPPA. My statement was based upon the fact, since this is Firehouse.com, that the previous remarks came from an off duty firefighter or medic. And yes, since I have worked in both the pre-hospital and hospital setting, I am familiar with it. Especially this clause: "A patient must sign an authorization form before health information can be disclosed for marketing." So, lets say Mr. Off Duty Firefighter takes photos or video of your mother while she is being extricated from an accident. He then turns around and publishes these photos or places a video on Youtube. And, because your mother's face and injuries are identifiable, she starts getting mail, email and phone calls from chiropractors/pain management clinics/physical therapists,etc offering their services that she doesnt want. Did the photographer/off duty firefighter/medic disclose private medical record information, even though he or she is very familiar with HIPAA (not HIPPA)? Its muddy waters that lawyers cannot decide one way or another. Do you want to be the test court case? My advice, and my law director's, for anyone taking photos is never show a patient's face! We are not the media or a curious passerby or a buff. Remember this quote?: "The funny thing about firemen is, night and day, they are always firemen." Google it, its from a movie that was made about 7 years before you came on the job. Its a totally different ball game for us my friend. On duty or off. PS...Did I mention that its HIPAA and not HIPPA?

[DeputyMarshal]

I have to caution you on that train of thought. HIPAA Privacy Rules guarantee a patient's right to total privacy, including forbidding having their photo taken without their consent if their identity and their injuries can be identified.

It depends on who's taking the pictures and where the patient is. HIPAA doesn't apply to everyone.

[firepiper1]

It depends on who's taking the pictures and where the patient is. HIPAA doesn't apply to everyone.

Exactly, as I stated in my very wordy post above. The media, the general public, no. My only caution is to fire/ems folks.

[DeputyMarshal]

So, lets say Mr. Off Duty Firefighter takes photos or video of your mother while she is being extricated from an accident. He then turns around and publishes these photos or places a video on Youtube.

He's off-duty and not providing billable medical care so HIPAA absolutely doesn't apply. (It may or may not apply when he's on-duty.)

As long as he and the accident are in a public place in plain view, he can take pictures to his little heart's content and publish them wherever he wants to. Under some circumstances, he can even sell those pictures.

[DeputyMarshal]

Exactly, as I stated in my very wordy post above. The media, the general public, no. My only caution is to fire/ems folks.

FWIW, CT just passed a law making it illegal for medical responders (on-duty with the exception of official photos) to take recognizable pictures of a patient at a scene without the patient or patient's family's permission.

Off-duty repsonders, on the other hand, have no more restrictions on them than the general public.

[ChiefKN]

So, lets say Mr. Off Duty Firefighter takes photos or video of your mother while she is being extricated from an accident. He then turns around and publishes these photos or places a video on Youtube. And, because your mother's face and injuries are identifiable, she starts getting mail, email and phone calls from chiropractors/pain management clinics/physical therapists,etc offering their services that she doesnt want.

Did the photographer/off duty firefighter/medic disclose private medical record information, even though he or she is very familiar with HIPAA (not HIPPA)?

That "off duty firefighter" is totally within their rights.

Its muddy waters that lawyers cannot decide one way or another. Do you want to be the test court case? My advice, and my law director's, for anyone taking photos is never show a patient's face! We are not the media or a curious passerby or a buff. Remember this quote?: "The funny thing about firemen is, night and day, they are always firemen." Google it, its from a movie that was made about 7 years before you came on the job. Its a totally different ball game for us my friend. On duty or off. PS...Did I mention that its HIPAA and not HIPPA?

It is not muddy at all... it is crystal clear.

You don't know what you are talking about. End of story.

You and your "law director" obviously don't understand the the law.

Btw, great job quoting "Backdraft" as part of your "legal" intepretation. I almost peed my pants over that...

Here read this... note who is a "covered entity".

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ies/index.html

[nmfire]

Blah blah blah

Other than pointing out a typographical error, you have yet to say anything intelligent on this matter. Nothing in your blabber has anything to do with this. Your original post was wrong then and it is still wrong now. Your follow up is even more wrong. And illustrates quite clearly what I said before. You fling the term around without having a single clue what it is about.

Feel free to correct any typos if that's the only thing you can do right.

[firepiper1]

Off-duty repsonders, on the other hand, have no more restrictions on them than the general public.

I do know of a case where a paramedic was suspended for sharing a patient's photos via cell phone messaging. He took the photos off duty. If I can find the article, I will post it.

[ChiefKN]

I do know of a case where a paramedic was suspended for sharing a patient's photos via cell phone messaging. He took the photos off duty. If I can find the article, I will post it.

So what?

Doesn't mean he violated HIPAA.

I eagerly await you finding this article...

[nmfire]

I do know of a case where a paramedic was suspended for sharing a patient's photos via cell phone messaging. He took the photos off duty. If I can find the article, I will post it.

That's nice. What does that have to do with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? Oh that's right... NOTHING. Just like everything else you've tried to post.

[FWDbuff]

That's nice. What does that have to do with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? Oh that's right... NOTHING. Just like everything else you've tried to post.

And under federal law, the medic could have (and should have) sued his/her employer for infringement of civil rights.

[firepiper1]

A legal opinion regarding posting photos or other information obtained "off duty" that can identify someone. It is taken from a lecture for pre-hospital providers on the ever changing views of "patient privacy" in our overly-litigious society.


"The HIPAA statute is a long and complicated law that could take hours and hours to discuss. However, there are some major points specific to social media and EMS that should be addressed. With the rising popularity of social media sites like Facebook, and sites which promote instantaneous information transmission such as Twitter, this has created a gap in the law which was designed to protect a patient's or victim's right to privacy. Lawmakers have begun drafting a rash of new legislation which places criminal and civil sanctions on any posting on the internet, especially of crime scenes (which can include motor vehicle crashes), by any member of the ‘public trust,' such as police, fire, EMS, and other emergency responders. Anyone who the public relies on is naturally subject to a higher level of scrutiny when not on duty. You should be well aware by now that, as a care giver, publishing any patient information without the express written permission of the patient will violate the law under the privacy provisions of the federally enacted HIPAA. Violating a patient’s privacy is no longer limited to releasing patient records. Prohibited publishing also includes releasing photographs or video of a patient posted on any social media site or e-mailed, even by a person of the 'public trust' not directly involved in the patient’s care. The internet increases the chances that someone will be able to identify the person that you are referring to in your posted account, photo or video. In short, you have an obligation under the law to protect every aspect of a patient’s privacy; even if you are off-duty."

On that note, I will let you form your own opinions and bid you all a good night. And be safe out there!

[nmfire]

More long rambling that doesn't actually have anything to do with HIPAA.

[firepiper1]

More long rambling that doesn't actually have anything to do with HIPAA.

Gee, a lecture by an attorney regarding how being off duty doesnt exempt you from HIPAA and includes the sentence "Prohibited publishing also includes releasing photographs or video of a patient" doesnt actually have anything to do with HIPAA. You are chief material!

[ChiefKN]

"The HIPAA statute is a long and complicated law that could take hours and hours to discuss. However, there are some major points specific to social media and EMS that should be addressed. With the rising popularity of social media sites like Facebook, and sites which promote instantaneous information transmission such as Twitter, this has created a gap in the law which was designed to protect a patient's or victim's right to privacy. Lawmakers have begun drafting a rash of new legislation which places criminal and civil sanctions on any posting on the internet, especially of crime scenes (which can include motor vehicle crashes), by any member of the ‘public trust,' such as police, fire, EMS, and other emergency responders. Anyone who the public relies on is naturally subject to a higher level of scrutiny when not on duty.

Let me break that down for you.

There is nothing preventing you from doing it now... hence the "... gap in the law".... and "Lawmakers have begun drafting...."

So your quote doesn't support your position and in fact supports EVERYONE else's.

You should be well aware by now that, as a care giver, publishing any patient information without the express written permission of the patient will violate the law under the privacy provisions of the federally enacted HIPAA.

I disagree and feel strongly that this is incorrect. The law only applies if you are a "covered entity". Big difference then the blanket statement. Now maybe the attorney was providing an opinion to a "covered entity"... not sure.

Violating a patient’s privacy is no longer limited to releasing patient records. Prohibited publishing also includes releasing photographs or video of a patient posted on any social media site or e-mailed, even by a person of the 'public trust' not directly involved in the patient’s care. The internet increases the chances that someone will be able to identify the person that you are referring to in your posted account, photo or video. In short, you have an obligation under the law to protect every aspect of a patient’s privacy; even if you are off-duty."

This opinion is not necessarily supported by the actual law... again, it depends on the exact circumstances.

While there might be other laws protecting privacy, HIPAA does not support this opinion.

Can you provide a citation for these comments?

Is this the source?
http://www.brfd.org/training/medical...ril%202011.pdf

[firepiper1]

The quotes were taken from a handout. If the information was originally from the link you provided, or vice versa, I cant tell you.

Well my friends, I think we have beat this one to death. Or close to it. Again, form your own opinions on the subject. I can only base mine on what I have been told. You know what they say about lawyers, every firehouse has one.

Be safe.