re: DOJ Indicts Doctor Who Exposed the Barbarism of “Gender-Affirming Care”

quote:

---

How do you know he leaked private information.

---

It's admitted in the article, and he isn't denying it.

quote:

---

At the minimum, dates of service, which is a HIPAA-protected category of PHI.

---

If the name is redacted, who's privacy are you violating?

quote:

---

If the name is redacted, who's privacy are you violating?

---

She's more interested in the violation than the butchers destroying kids.

Sounds whislteblowery

quote:

---

He leaked patient data. Time to face consequences.

---

Here Commie, read


The lead prosecutor on Haim’s investigation is Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina Ansari of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas. Haim’s lawyers said that Ansari admitted she never reviewed the purported evidence in the case before she signed off on a target letter in June 2023 — one month after the whistleblower story was published. Federal agents had allegedly subpoenaed records for the investigation without her review.

Haim’s lawyers claimed Ansari defended the use of transgender procedures on minors, calling them a “last hope” for families of transgender children. She allegedly used a personal cell phone for the calls with Haim’s lawyers.

The most outrageous aspect of the investigation, Haim said, is how the DOJ allegedly attempted to threaten his wife. Haim said the federal agents asked to interview him when they appeared at his house, but his wife, who is a lawyer, advised him not to oblige. This exchange at the house was allegedly later broached by Ansari on a call with Haim’s legal team.

According to the letter written by Haim’s lawyers, Ansari mentioned Mrs. Haim remains under a federal background investigation to be an assistant U.S. attorney in Texas, the same position held by Ansari. She then claimed Mrs. Haim attempted to interfere in the investigation into her husband by advising him not to interview with federal agents. This interference, Ansari allegedly said, would not be reported to federal background investigators unless Mrs. Haim “becomes difficult.”

quote:

---

If the name is redacted, who's privacy are you violating?

---

Under HIPAA regulations, there are 18 specific categories of data known as 'protected health information'. As providers we are not allowed to share this with unauthorized individuals, or else we've violated the law.

Perhaps this will help:

LINK

quote:

---

List of 18 Identifiers
1. Names;
2. All geographical subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code, if according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census: (1) The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people; and (2) The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.
3. All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older;
4. Phone numbers;
5. Fax numbers;
6. Electronic mail addresses;
7. Social Security numbers;
8. Medical record numbers;
9. Health plan beneficiary numbers;
10. Account numbers;
11. Certificate/license numbers;
12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers;
13. Device identifiers and serial numbers;
14. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs);
15. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers;
16. Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints;
17. Full face photographic images and any comparable images; and
18. Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code (note this does not mean the unique code assigned by the investigator to code the data)

---

The original article mentions that the clinic saw multiple patients with specific treatments "on the same day last week," which would indicate that dates and individual patient details were released. Even if you remove the names and things like MRNs and phone numbers, you're still in violation.

That is, within this framework, releasing individualized dates is considered
the same as releasing names.

Hope you understand a bit better now!

Lol. You dumb little bitch.

A criminal HIPAA violation must disclose “individually identifiable health information.”

quote:

---

(i) identifies the individual; or (ii) with respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the individual.

---

None of what you quoted could provide a reasonable basis to believe the information could be used to identify the individual.

LINK

Hope you understand better now, you fake assed doctor.

quote:

---

Slam dunk HIPAA violation.

---

"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law"

quote:

---

PHI disclosure isn’t criminal unless it meets the conditions above. They are criminally charging him.

---

Disclosing specific dates about a small patient population, including what seems to be individually identifying information about treatment, easily passes that bar.

quote:

---

The charge is not supported by the law.

---

Incorrect, this extremist resident screwed up badly, and will have a criminal record to remind him of it.

quote:

---

the resident here

---

Should have spent longer reading the HIPAA trainings he was undoubtedly given.