Legal questions regarding Mett

Likely a team leaked the info

HIPAA itself does not provide for a private civil remedy. However, it does create a duty, of which Louisiana's tort system is based upon….so if the breach took place in Louisiana he may have a cause of action in negligence/intentional tort. But since the disclosure happened outside of Louisiana he may be bound by the laws of that state.

More than likely signed some type of disclosure at the Combine clearing any wrong doing by NFL or anyone of that affiliation.

quote:

---

1. Isn't the release of test results illegal according to HIPPA?

---

It wasn't released it was "leaked" to the press. You can speculate all day long as to who leaked it but unless you have proof any suit would be frivolous.

quote:

---

If so would he have a cause to sue the company that ran the tests?

---

Mett would have to prove that the company that administered the test leaked the information in order to prevail.

Bottom line is damage is done "whatever that maybe" now they are trying to get their story out to do damage control.

quote:

---

yep trying to drop his stock so they can grab him with a later pick

---

This would not surprise me if it was common practice.

I'm not thinking of just Mett.

There were other players involved in the "leak". It seems that some sort of a joint suit would send a message. If it was an NFL team that "leaked", that alone might put a stop to the practice. The NFL is pretty lawsuit jittery now.

It's pretty shitty that reputations and market value is being harmed by such shady crap. The sports media gets their collective jockies in their butts over the racist ramblings of a senile old coot, but jump like hungry wolves when the reputations of young men are on the line.

quote:

---

Those papers are near meaningless

---

Here is a link that suggests otherwise:

quote:

---

The final rules just under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 appear to provide some wriggle room - if not outright exclusion - for professional sports teams, according to The New York Times.

Teams in the major sports had feared that if the government chose to interpret the law strictly, they would have faced a huge mess in handling their players' medical information.

But pages 50 and 51 of the rules appear to give them an out. "Professional sports teams are unlikely to be covered entities" under the law, the Department of Health and Human Services states in the document. "Even if a sports team were to be a covered entity, employment records of a covered entity are not covered by this rule."

Furthermore, the document states, "nothing in this rule prevents an employer, such as a professional sports team, from making an employee's agreement to disclose health records a condition of employment."

---

LINK

quote:

---

If it was an NFL team that "leaked", that alone might put a stop to the practice. The NFL is pretty lawsuit jittery now.

---

Doesn't every NFL team gets the urine results? So the leak only makes public what is already known by all the teams. Other than how the player is perceived by the public, I don't see how the leak is a big deal.

That's what I'm getting at. Hammer either the NFL, the testing service or the reporting entity or all of the above.

quote:

---

"failed" piss test for dilated urine is so abstract and the fact it leaked.. win/win for mett

---

ISWYDH