Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Supreme Court Revives Lawsuit Over Medical Privacy
Dale Wetzel | Grand Forks Herald | 06/06/06

BISMARCK, N.D. - North Dakota's Supreme Court has revived a Beulah man's lawsuit against a doctor for informing police about evidence he used marijuana before he caused a fatal traffic accident.

Jerric Ballensky was driving a car on State Highway 49 near Beulah in October 1995 when he swerved into the wrong lane, smashing into a pickup head-on.

Ballensky was 17 at the time of the accident, court records say. His passenger, Josh Navratil, 16, of Zap, was killed. Ballensky said Navratil was his best friend. The two teenagers were on a hunting trip.

Dr. Jan Flattum-Riemers, who treated Ballensky at the Sakakawea Medical Center at Hazen, ordered a drug screen, which found evidence Ballensky had recently used marijuana.

She then told Rick Richard, a North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper who was investigating the wreck, and told Navratil's family to ask Richard about the test results, court records say.

Ballensky said he was not drinking or smoking marijuana before the accident, and both Flattum-Riemers and Richard said later they did not believe Ballensky's earlier marijuana use played a role in the wreck. Evidence that a person has used marijuana can linger in the person's urine for two weeks.

Ballensky was charged with manslaughter, and later pleaded guilty to negligent homicide. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, fined $1,500 and placed on probation for five years.

Ballensky later sued Flattum-Riemers, saying she violated his privacy and embarrassed him by releasing irrelevant medical information about his marijuana use.

South Central District Judge Robert Wefald dismissed the lawsuit. However, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion on Monday, overruled Wefald and said Ballensky should have the chance to prove he was harmed by Flattum-Riemers' disclosure.

Ballensky "contends he lost his best friend in an automobile accident in which he was the driver, and Dr. Flattum-Riemers' unauthorized release of privileged medical information provided an unwarranted explanation for the cause of the accident," Justice Dale Sandstrom wrote.

Flattum-Riemers also argued she was immune from a lawsuit in the dispute because her report to the highway patrolman was made in good faith. The Supreme Court's ruling rejected that argument.

"Whether Dr. Flattum-Riemers' report was made in good faith is a question of fact, not suitable for summary judgment," the opinion says.

Ballensky's initial lawsuit also named the Sakakawea Medical Center as a defendant, but he agreed to dismiss the hospital from the case in April 2004.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Mamabudz

Bottom line folks:

Doctor patient confidentiallity on the issue of Pot goes out the window when you or someone else is or can be or might be an injured party -- and that could be the Public At Large at some reasonable time in the future.

That's how the Courts decide the issue.

And that's why: Share the Info with your Doctor -- ASK THAT NO WRITTEN NOTATIONS BE KEPT -- A good Doctor will always refer to his notes during a deposition to refresh his memory, 'nuff said.

...and of course, have a cookie

troublemaker_42

Ummm.....correct me if I'm wrong, but the basis of the article seemed, at least to me, to indicate that the court is reviewing the case. Maybe its not as cut and dried as you present it to be. If it were, I doubt the Supreme Court would be wasting their time on it. Its obviously an area of controversy, but the final decsion has yet to be made. If you rights were "out the window" immediately in such cases, it wouldn't be worthy of review.