[webpal]

I previously wrote an email below to my coworkers at the clinic where I work regarding my thoughts on the abrupt termination of a long-time coworker who I've considered as part of the family. Since the announcement only mentioned her last day of work as Nov. 12 and nothing more. Since her abrupt termination from service was the talk at the clinic, I thought of coming up with an email in order to come hopefully come up with a sensible and logical explanation of what may have led to the drastic action of termination. I knew I had something to say up to a certain extent based on facts since I was there when an event occurred as explained in the email. To my great shock, I'm being accused of committing a HIPAA violation where mgt. claims that I indicated in the email a specific person with his full name included was a patient at the clinic. I never saw it coming and I'm very much bothered by it. In fact, mgt. has scheduled an investigatory meeting on Fri. with reps from the HIPAA Privacy Office where I work. I maintain to the very end that I'm being falsely accused since nowhere in my email did I explicitly, expressly and specifically mentioned that a person was a patient at the clinic. I'd highly appreciate any of your comments. Thank you.

Subject: Regarding SH's Abrupt Termination from the Clinic
As you may know by now, the services of SH who has worked as a front desk staff for a very long time was abruptly terminated. Her last
Day at the clinic was Nov. 12.
I'm not privy as to what exactly may have led to the drastic action taken by admin. But what I can narrate to you is what may have started it all because I was there when it occurred.

Our supervisor S.'s off days are Fridays.
That said, about a month or so ago on a Friday about noontime, I answered a call from a gentleman who said his name was DC, a social worker and that he wanted to speak with a supervisor.
He said that a signature is not clear on a fax regarding one of their clients who's supposed to be coming to the clinic on Fridays for treatment.
This struck me as odd since it's the first time I've heard of such instance. Based on my 21 years of experience of working at the clinic, an excuse note for work or a documentation of some sort for whatever lawful purpose may only be issued AFTER a patient's encounter with a clinic staff.
After I heard that he asked for a supervisor, S.'s name immediately came to mind but she was off that day.
The second thing which came to mind was SS, a clinician supervisor, who I knew was working that day. But I thought I can't discuss anything with her because I have no knowledge of the fax that the guy had mentioned earlier.
In response, I told him that since I don't know anything about the fax, I requested him to fax it to xxxxxxxxx so I can better assist him.
I heard the fax machine become busy after a few minutes and I knew it was probably the incoming fax from him.
The fax consisted of about 2 pages and the one thing which immediately caught my attention was the name written on it: Jxxxx Hxxxx.
I know that name very well since it's the name of one of SH's sons.
I immediately gave the fax to SH who was seated beside me.
I then asked her to talk about it with the social worker guy whom I had called back because she might know something about it.

I took the following Monday off and I came back to work the
Next day.
As far as I can recall, S. asked me about the call from the guy last Fri.
I explained to her what had transpired per above.
She said that the guy called again on Mon. and that after she spoke with him, she immediately notified BK of their conversation.
I observed that S. did not seem to like what had occurred since it happened during her absence.

After about a week or so, the 4 of us who work on Fridays, namely, SH, SO, GE and I separately received a letter signed by BK requesting
Individual meetings which she said was exploratory in nature.
I went to her office to seek clarification.
I asked her if it was about attendance which I knew my other coworkers had previous issues with but she said no.
I then had a pretty good idea that the meeting she requested was about JH.

I went to the requested meeting with a clear conscience with nothing to hide since I was not involved whatsoever in any shenanigan if there was one.
In the meeting were BK, a HMC HR rep and a rep from our labor union.
When asked whether I was familiar with fax with JH's name on
It, I told those present about what had transpired as I have indicated above.
I finally realized that the guy I spoke with works as a social worker at the jail and I found out after the fact that JH is a detainee at the jail.
I was asked how we deal with patients who come to the
Clinic.
Since I could only speak for myself, I responded by saying
That everything needs to be documented from the moment they check in when their name is noted down in the patient log to the time they leave the clinic where an encounter with a clinic staff needs to be documented too.
I tried to emphasize the importance of documentation to avoid any questions being asked later.
I was also asked whether I've seen JH at the clinic.
I replied that I've seen him on several occasions on Fridays.

Subsequent to our individual meetings, SH, SO and GE excluding me each received an envelope from BK, which I found out after the fact was about a request for another individual meeting.
SH's termination unfortunately came after her last meeting in the presence of a union rep.

Much as I'd like to get the side of my coworkers about the issue, I noticed that no one was interested in discussing it with me about it which was understandable.

As the saying goes, there are at least 2 sides to a story.
That said, I'd like to offer my opinion in trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together as to what may have led admin. To arrive at such harsh action.
The fax which was central to the issue apparently contained the
Signatures of my 3 coworkers.
I also think that what may have been indicated in the fax was meant to serve as a temporary pass for JH.
I think admin. May have thought that SH may have committed an offense such as making false (or fraudulent, if a harsher term is preferred) statement or representation.
From what I understand, by signing a piece of paper to account for a patient's time in the clinic, one is supposed to be attesting to the fact the patient came to the clinic for OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
But maybe when verification to the effect was required, there was no official documentation from the clinic such as from the patient log and/or from the patient chart which could be produced.
I personally think that if it may have been just a one-time visit to the clinic by JH, admin. May have given her another chance.
But unfortunately it was a series of unofficial visits.
Although I understand that her termination is being grieved by the union, I'm personally not optimistic about her chances of being reinstated due to the circumstances surrounding her case.

Knowing well that there have been previous discussions between admin. HR and our union about SH's attendance issue, I've not been remiss in reminding her constantly that she needs to be very careful in her job since she maybe is in the spotlight.
I've kept emphasizing to her that she needs her job most especially for the health insurance benefit since admittedly she's not a person who's in good health.
But I guess my pleas may have fallen on deaf ears.

I will really miss SH whom I've worked with for so many
Years that we're like family.
I wish her all the best in all of her future endeavors.

[tickle]

webpal, are you the one actually be accused of a HIPAA violation, because nowhere in your long post does it appear to be the case, or why you would be, or probably lost in all the explanations.

I see nothing to indicate a reason why you are being accused, and I can't understand why an employee of this clinic who has been there for 21 year would be treated as such.

There must be something else going on between you and the clinic for such a serious accusation.

Tick

[J_9]

Did YOU give the patient's name in the email? If so, you could have worded it better by not using his name. Such as... patient John Doe.

[ScottGem]

First, your e-mail is disjointed and hard to understand what you are saying. I don't see a HIPAA violation, BUT depending on the nature of the clinic just mentioning the name of someone who is a patient could be a HIPAA violation. You wouldn't have to specifically say that X was a patient, it could have been implied based on the nature of the writing.

But frankly, you had NO business writing that e-mail in the first place. It is not your place to comment on why an employee was terminated whether you had any knowledge of the reasons that may have led to the termination or not. If I was your employer, I would have kicked you out for gross misconduct immediately. Maybe they are just looking for an excuse to make terminating you sound less like revenge, but I don't think they have to. Discussing the situation verbally among co-workers would have been bad enough though maybe not grounds for termination. But to put it in an e-mail?? Sorry, but you will be very lucky if you don't lose your job over this and without eligibility for Unemployment benefits.

If I were you I would go into that hearing and apologize for a lapse in judgment. Tell them you had worked so long and had such a good relationship with the terminated employee, that her termination affected you so deeply that you really didn't consider the ramifications of sending that e-mail and it won't happen again.

[Fr_Chuck]

If you used the patients full name, yes it can be considered a violation ( if they want to push it to the limit of the wording of the law)

Next they are mad at you for your protest and your appearance to now being a trouble maker about this other persons leaving.

You went up against a management choice and now must risk and face the music for that choice.

In today's economy, many companies have a belief that if you cause any trouble and are not in agreement, it is easy to replace you.

So you drew a line in the sand and made a stand, now you will face the punishment of a company that did not like what you did.

[webpal]

Thanks for your time and response. I used d person's full name in d orig eml simply because it was written on d fax. But nowhere did I mention specifically that he was a patient. CBA only covers personn. Files, not matter or issues, so they hv no ground.

[webpal]

Thanks for your time and response. I did use the person's full name simply because it was written on d fax. But nowhere did I specifically mention that he was a patient, a position w/c I'll always maintain. Readers may hv assumed or alluded to that. Thanks

[webpal]

I'm highly appreciative for your time and response. Thank you very much.

[webpal]

Thanks 4 your time and response. D only rsn why I mentioned his full name because it was written on d fax but nowhere did I specifically mention that he was a pt. CBA only covers personn. Files (not matter or issues) so they hv no ground. Apology fine w/ me.

[ScottGem]

Please do not use the comments feature for followups and please do not use text speak when posting. I can barely read your responses. The site rules are that we type in full words and sentences here.

[webpal]

Sir, I'm truly very sorry about that since it's my very first time to this forum. The comment section unfortunately can only accommodate 250 characters max. Please accept my humble apology. Again, I sincerely thank you very much for your time.

[J_9]

Comment on ScottGem's post
The comment section unfortunately can only accommodate 250 characters max.

This is why we ask that you scroll down to the Answer this question box rather than using the comments feature.