Court: Couple Can't Have Adult Child's Records
Headline Legal News
An Iowa couple cannot have access to their adult child's physical and mental health records after being denied visitation with their grandson, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court issued its ruling in the Plymouth County case between Jerry and Susan Ashenfelter and their daughter, Amy Mulligan. The Ashenfelters sought their daughter's records after she decided it was in her 6-year-old son's best interest not to have contact with them.
A district court ordered Mulligan to produce her physical and mental health records to her parents, because the Ashenfelters had to prove their daughter was unfit to make a decision regarding grandparent visitation.
Mulligan appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, deciding that the records were protected by Mulligan's constitutional right to privacy.
"The district court abused its discretion in ordering Amy to produce her medical and mental health records to the Ashenfelters," the court wrote.
The high court's ruling refers to the Ashenfelters' request for a 2008 commitment court file, notes, records and reports from counseling sessions at a sexual assault and domestic violence center but does not elaborate. But no commitment file existed because Mulligan was hospitalized voluntarily, the court said.
Related listings
-
Mont. Supreme Court considers access restrictions
Headline Legal News 12/19/2010The Montana Supreme Court is considering restrictions to public access of certain information now available throughout the court system, including a proposal to seal all documents filed in family law cases except for final orders. Freedom of informat...
-
Searchers seek gunman in Utah ranger shooting
Headline Legal News 12/16/2010Searchers combed the rugged red rock terrain near Moab for a third day Monday in their hunt for a possibly armed and dangerous man they believe was involved in the shooting of a Utah park ranger.The target of their manhunt was Lance Leeroy Arellano, ...
-
Leaked US cables reveal sensitive diplomacy
Headline Legal News 11/28/2010Hundreds of thousands of State Department documents leaked Sunday revealed a hidden world of backstage international diplomacy, divulging candid comments from world leaders and detailing occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanis...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.