My personal physician is also the City Doctor. Can my employer see and have access to my personal medical records just because the dr. also works for my employer? I have signed that only my wife is to get my medical info, no one else. :confused:

Did the city request information? Or did the doctor volunteer it? If this is a work comp case, the employer may request information and the doctor can supply it; this would not be a HIPAA violation.

This is not a work comp. case. My husband was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago. The City was informed (our first mistake). The City demanded that he go to the city Dr. (which was also his personal physician at the time). The City Dr. then shared his findings with the City without my husbands permission. He shared this with both my husbands boss and the City Manager. My husband had signed HIPAA privacy forms stating that only I, his wife, could have access to his medical records.
Since this Dr. works for the city also, does that void out what he signed?

See, here's the problem. The employer has the right to send an employee for a "fit for duty" exam and to get the doctor's opinion of what the employee can and cannot physically do as it relates to the employee's job. Now, if the doctor shared additional information with the employer that did not relate to your fitness to do the job, then it's possible there might be a HIPAA violation by your doctor. The city itself (as the employer) did not violate any law by asking nor receiving information.

And, perhaps it's time to find a new doctor. I'm not unsympathethic, but I'm not absolutely convinced either way here.

This is not a work comp. case. My husband was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago. The City was informed (our first mistake). The City demanded that he go to the city Dr. (which was also his personal physician at the time). The City Dr. then shared his findings with the City without my husbands permission. He shared this with both my husbands boss and the City Manager. My husband had signed HIPAA privacy forms stating that only I, his wife, could have access to his medical records.
Since this Dr. works for the city also, does that void out what he signed?
Who informed the city in the first place that he was ever diagnosed with MS?

I inferred that it was the employee.

I inferred that it was the employee.
That is what I thought, but I just wanted to rule out the doctor taking it apon himself to tell his work.

As best I can determine, your husband's employer required a medical examination for your husband. However, it's not clear why. Nonetheless, HIPAA permits the doctor conducting the exam for your husband's employer to disclose medical information from that exam to the employer without your husband's permission under certain circumstances, which may apply here. It's really irrelevant, but complicating, that your husband's personal physician is also the employer's physician.

However, are you sure that your husband didn't give his employer permission to get the results of the medical exam from the doctor? I can't imagine that an employer would refer an employee for a medical exam without getting permission for medical disclosure. If it did get such permission, the HIPAA permission your husband gave to the doctor acting in his capacity as your husband's personal physician wouldn't be controlling.

Has your husband requested any kind of accommodation for his medical condition from his employer? If so, he may have given permission for his employer to obtain medical information.

When did the doctor give the employer medical information on your husband? HIPAA only became effective in 2003. If the disclosure occurred before then, there is no possibility of a violation.

Quality and continuity of medical care are important to treatment. If your doctor provides the quality of care you need, I wouldn't end the medical relationship unless your doctor is truly breaching your husband's medical confidentiality and no steps can be taken to stop it.

EVEN IF there is a violation here, and I agree it's not clear if there has been one or not, the violation was committed by the doctor, not by the employer.

They never stated it as "fit for work" exam. My husband had told the previous administration when he was diagnosed. They had no problem with it. He has never had any physical problems at work because of his MS. Nor has he ever taken any time off of work because of his MS. His neurologist has given him signed work releases with no restrictions every time he has seen him. The City refuses to look at them. We even went to the Mayo Clinic and they gave him a "no restrictions" work release. He has always been able to perform his job duties. We think that the Dr. was wrong for disclosing information because there were no incidents to indicate that he might not be fit for duty.

They never stated it as "fit for work" exam. My husband had told the previous administration when he was diagnosed. They had no problem with it. He has never had any physical problems at work because of his MS. Nor has he ever taken any time off of work because of his MS. His neurologist has given him signed work releases with no restrictions every time he has seen him. The City refuses to look at them. We even went to the Mayo Clinic and they gave him a "no restrictions" work release. He has always been able to perform his job duties. We think that the Dr. was wrong for disclosing information because there were no incidents to indicate that he might not be fit for duty.
If you told the previous administrator, it was probably written down in documentations somewhere and the new boss found it. Since you disclosed this to someone at work, that kind of opens the door for it to be found out by someone else who would have a problem with it. Sorry this happened.

If he was sent for an exam by his employer, it was a "fit for duty" exam. It may not have been called that, but if the employer ordered it, and paid for it, they were entitled to the results, whether or not the doctor was also the treating physician.

The doctor shouldn't have disclosed anything just because the employer asked but if the employer requested the exam, then yes, they could be told the results. I'm not sure why the employer would request the exam if there wasn't a reason. Particularly if they had a full duty release from this doctor before and there weren't any problems. Might as well just flush $200 down the toilet if that is the case.

This is purely a guess, but based on way more cases than I care to think about, but I'm thinking there are some problems that manifest themselves at work and the employer wanted an exam to address those issues. To put it delicately, there are times when an employee doesn't necessarily see the same issues that an employer does.

In any case, the violation would be with the physician, not the employer.

My understanding of this situation was that the initial preplacement examination was given by a city MD who also happened to be the applicant's personal physician. If the physician had the job applicant sign a medical release, the release could be to release the medical information to the MD and the Employer as well. After all, in these examinations the MD is acting as the employer's agent.

State law with regard to medical releases applies in this case. HIPPA does not generally apply to occupational medical examinations. That law applies to those who treat patients.

Under the ADA, there are times when diagnostic information is needed by immediate supervisors and coworkers. A person prone to epileptic fits for example. Even in this case, a wise employer will ensure a medical release is obtained under state law.

Most occupational MDs refuse to give diagnositic information to employers. In this case, they employer would never have heard about the MS or even the epilepsy in the hypothetical case. I think this is wrong, but many are extreme in this regard. It is a decision they have made. It is not one that they are legally required to do.

Thank you for your input, I am not sure if the poster will be coming back though, its been a while. I guess we will wait and see.:)

And this thread is from last August. Please check the dates before you post.