Is it legal to *prohibit* recording a conversation in Pennsylvania? I went to a walk-in patient care facility earlier this evening, and asked the provider upon his entrance if I could record the interview. (I realize this feels adversarial, but I had a valid reason.) He replied that no, it was hospital policy that encounters could not recorded, and even after explaining the reason, he refused, so I did not. But I do wonder if this is legal. When I got home, I looked it up. According to this digital media law site, it is not illegal to record a conversation if you are one of the parties: Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. I also saw that Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. I tried to read the wiretapping law but gave up pretty quickly. So I'm left to wonder. Is it legal to prohibit recording a conversation in Pennsylvania? I have never been threatened with a lawsuit, so I'm a bit less leery of patients suing me than some of my colleagues. Granted it doesn't happen often, but I've always given consent when asked if I could be audio recorded (I'm a physician.) My reasoning: - It may be helpful to a caregiver who was unable to attend the visit. - It is no different than bringing in a friend or relative into the room (It's actually a lot more objective and I only have to answer one person's questions.) - Due to anxiety over illness, etc., patients only hear/remember about 25% of what a doctor says. An audio recording is a valuable resource for the patient if they want to review instructions or explanations they might have missed. - It empowers a patient to a small extent, evening out the huge imbalance of power between physician and patient. Anything I can do to increase confidence in me in particular, and in the medical profession in general, is a plus. - The patient has as much a right to an audio copy of our interaction as a paper copy of the chart. - I have nothing to hide if I'm doing my best and meeting (hopefully exceeding) the standard of care. - It protects me as well if a claim is made (I imagine alteration of audio recordings can be detected if necessary. My previous malpractice carrier encouraged transparency in all things, and had no problems with this. But I never even thought to run this by the legal department of the hospital where I'm now employed, and if it's discouraged, I missed the memo.
You have misread the DMLP page. In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to record a conversation if you are a party and if the other party does not consent. The fact that federal law doesn't ban something doesn't mean that states can't ban it. There is generally a presumption that when both the feds and the states can legitimately regulate something, the feds weren't trying to preempt all state laws on the topic. While people often say "federal law takes precedence over state law," the normal rule is that both laws apply; the federal law only blocks the state law if the feds wanted to block said state laws. So far as I can tell, the federal law has never been held to preempt two-party consent laws; the point of the federal law was to restrict recording, not extend it. It's like how federal law doesn't prohibit taking hostages inside the US to coerce a private company into doing what you want (anti-terrorism laws might, I guess, but the federal hostage-taking law doesn't); while the federal law excludes most hostage-taking in the US, that doesn't mean that it's legal to take hostages. Congress sometimes wants to establish nationwide standards for something, but the presumption is that they didn't.
As a short answer, guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services has clarified that HIPAA does not require hospitals to provide separate rooms. As a longer answer, HIPAA is very deeply misunderstood. It does not prohibit "leaking" patient information; it prohibits unreasonable and unpermitted disclosures of protected health information (PHI). Among the PHI disclosures that are permitted are uses that are for the purpose of delivering medical treatment. Of course, the covered entity (in this case, the hospital) is required to take reasonable measures to safeguard that information. One of the areas that trips people up is figuring out exactly what it is we're safeguarding that information from. A lot people assume that the HIPAA imposes an absolute rule against disclosure of PHI, but it's more accurate to say that HIPAA requires reasonable safeguards against the unauthorized use of PHI. With that standard in mind, it becomes easier to see why you don't need to universally separate patients. In all likelihood, neither you nor your roommate is likely to use the other's PHI in any way not allowed under HIPAA. We can look at your question as proof: You've disclosed a person's health condition and medical history, but you were a reasonable person and omitted the man's name, birth date, record number, and anything else that might allow us to link that information to an individual. Hospitals -- and the law -- recognize that most people have no interest in a random strangers' medical information, let alone plans to do something nefarious with it. Because there isn't much of a threat there, the hospital isn't required to take exhaustive measures to protect the information. But when you put all that information for every patient for every doctor for every department for every hospital into a single database, the information starts getting a lot more valuable. That's why there are much tighter regulations surrounding protection of electronic records. Of course, the roommate situation might be different if the hospital had a patient that they somehow knew had a history of identity theft or even a history of disclosing PHI. I've never heard of this happening, but I'd imagine that that knowledge would require the hospital to either segregate that patient or otherwise take extra care to avoid disclosing any information about a roommate.
Following you around with the intent of harassing you is stalking. I don't know whether there's going to be a law actually requiring social distancing in Florida. In other states, I've seen laws set up to make it a crime to violate an order of the Director of Public Health or something like that. I don't know whether Florida actually has an order requiring social distancing by the general public.
You can request in advance that you get only a half-dose: there is certainly no law prohibiting making a request. They may refuse or they may agree. If they refuse, you can go elsewhere, but you cannot compel them to do what you ask for, given current law. You can also yell anything you want, or flail about however you want, at your peril. You could seriously hurt yourself by jumping around, and you would not be able to sue them for your stupid actions. Nor could you sue them for assault, since to get the ball rolling, you have to consent to getting the shot. Although consent can be withdrawn, there is the practical matter that you almost certainly cannot effectively communicate withdrawal of consent in the time needed to finish administering the job. If it took 5 minutes to administer the shot, you might be able to say &quot;I changed my mind&quot;, and they would be required to end the treatment, against medical advice.
NJ Rev Stat §9:6-1 may be the source of the rumor (since it was in the news), but that law prohibits "the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language". The NJ Supreme Court recently declined a First Amendment argument for overturning the law. Otherwise, a candidate is disorderly contact, NJ Rev Stat § 2C:33-2(b), A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present. N.J. v. Burkett somewhat tests this law, though the specific acts (which were found to be puerile yet legal) are not adequately described to test the limit on this ban on profanity (as a subcase of coarse language). The statute still stands, but seems not to have been otherwise prosecuted.
It is not "perfectly legal" to transcribe music for personal use. It is pretty likely that you can get away with it. The first thing to understand is that the act of transcribing is the creation of a derivative work (see the definitions part of Title 17). The core protection is section 106, which states that the owner of copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. So it is not permitted to prepare derivative works, e.g. transcriptions, without permission from the copyright owner. There is a big however: section 107 provides a possible loophole, "fair use". If you were to be sued for violation of copyright in making an unauthorized derivative work, your attorney might well advise you to set forth a fair use defense. This question and answer summarizes the basics of the fair use defense. Probably the most important factor would be the 4th factor, the effect on market -- in the circumstance that you describe, the effect is likely to be low. If you do this as a paid service for others and not just for personal amusement, then a fair use defense becomes a stretch.
Every State in the union has some form of involuntary mental health hold. Regardless of whether or not the patient claims it was an accident, it is incumbent upon the hospital or facility where the individual is held (which is typically at least 72 hours) to do an in-depth analysis of whether the person is a danger to themselves or others. While in this scenario it may've been an inadvertent overdose, the empirical evidence suggests it could have been intentional as the practitioner cannot see into the thoughts and motivations behind the patient's actions. Even taking the patient at face-value, addiction to the extent of overdose is also a mental health issue, which may cause a person to be a danger to themselves. From a clinical perspective, it is much more likely than not that one of the two scenarios occurred, versus a truly mistaken overdose. One would need to mistake their actions numerous times in a day to take so much as to overdose. If you look at it from the inverse perspective, if the facility failed to keep a person who'd just overdosed, or the first responder failed to initiate a hold and the person later died, minimally they would be liable if sued by the family in an action for wrongful death. The unfortunate facts are that if a person was set on committing suicide, it unlikely they would be forthcoming with that fact, for this very reason (the mandatory hold), so a person's word cannot be the determining factor. Even if someone was not intentionally trying to take their life, having taken enough Xanax to cause medical overdose would suggest the potential that even if not suicidal, the individual was at a minimum abusing the medication by taking much more than prescribed (or in a way that is contraindicated - such as with alcohol or other depressants) and potentially suffering from benzodiazepine addiction. Either way, if the hold was not initiated or cut short - and then someone ended up dying from an overdoes - the responsibility and potential liability is the same. A person who is suicidal can reassess what may be a snap decision, or have a chemical imbalance stabilized, or a severe addiction identified in that amount of time. For the person who ctually takes so much medication as to mistakenly cause overdose, this is certainly inconvenient; however, 72 hours is a short time in the grand scheme of things to potentially save a life. The law will nearly always err on the side of safety and prevention.
You don't specify what country's law you're interested in, but as you mention precedent, I'll assume you're interested in common-law jurisdictions such as the United States. The short answer is: you won't find any successful lawsuits such as you describe, at least not without some significant additional facts. In order to be subject to liability, a person needs to commit a breach of some duty. In a civil suit, this needs to be a duty to the plaintiff. In order for it to be actionable for the doctor to not answer the phone, the doctor would have to have somehow assumed a duty to answer the phone at that particular time. Giving someone your phone number is not, in and of itself, a promise that you will never take a shower, or go to a movie, or let your battery run down, or for any other reason be unwilling or unable to answer your phone at a moment's notice. In addition, the patient would have to demonstrate that the doctor, by failing to answer the phone, caused some sort of harm. If the patient is having a medical emergency of some sort, the doctor's advice will almost certainly be: "Hang up and dial 911." This is something the patient can do without the doctor's help. Without some more significant and compelling facts, no court is going to impose a duty on a doctor to sit by the phone waiting for a patient's call.