Attached is the assignment. Written assignment should be in 12 point Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins, double-spaced of a minimum of three pages. I have attachments of the readings from the book that I can provide as well because you will need to refer to that.
img_0821.heic.pdf
img_0823.heic.zip
assignment_for_meeting__1.docx
sanfiel_v_dept_of_health_749_so_2d_525_1999.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Assignment for Meeting #1 6500 Legal Aspects of Healthcare
NOTE: Unless indicated otherwise, all written assignment are to be in 12 point Times New
Roman font, 1 inch margins, double-spaced of a minimum of three (3) pages; and the cases,
questionnaire, articles, and links to videos are located in the weekly module for this
assignment on D2L (unless noted otherwise).
1. Complete the Student Questionnaire and upload it to the Dropbox for Student
Questionnaire.
2. Read
a. Chapter 1 (pages 1 -61) PLUS choose one of the ethical dilemmas that interests
you in Chapter 2 from our textbook, Legal and Ethical Issues for Health
Professionals by George D. Pozgar (4th Edition).
b. The case Sanfiel v. Department of Health
3. Watch the original video: Watch “Mutual Assent” by Sandra Benson. Consider how
Dr. Benson addressed each of the seven questions in her 7 step analysis to the Lucy v.
Zehmer case. (You will do the same 7 seven analysis for the Sanfiel case – see below).
4. Complete Written Assignment #1: Reflect on the following questions. Then write a
memo answering the following questions and upload your memo to the Dropbox on D2L
by the due date/time:
Part I: Sanfiel v. Department of Health Ethical Dilemmas:
a. What principle(s) (described in pages 13 – 28) did each of the following
demonstrate. Provide facts to explain why you picked the principles you selected:
(1) Sanfiel
(2) The State Board of Nursing
b. What virtues and values (pages 28-49) do you think each of the following held?
Provide facts to explain why you picked those virtues and values.
(1) Sanfiel
(2) The State Board of Nursing
(3) Charter
(4) The news media.
BLAW 6500 Spring 2019 A2 Revised 2/13/19
Page 1
c.
Assume you are Sanfiel and you just discovered the computer. Assume you do
not know the outcome that we now know from this case. Answer the questions
below:
(1) As Sanfiel, identify an ethical issue you are facing.
(2) Identify the relevant facts.
(3) Develop alternative actions to solve the ethics issue.
(4) Evaluate the alternatives. For each alternative, ask these questions:
– Compliance – Do company policies, codes of ethics, societal norms and/or the law
provide guidance for the issue?
– Personal Integrity – Am I being honest, fair, and truthful if I select this alternative?
Does this alternative respect others and show professionalism? Does this alternative
help to build trust? How would this look to the public?
– Individual Rights – Does this alternative adequately protect the rights of others?
– Promote More Good than Harm – Who is affected by the alternative? Does the
alternative do more harm to those impacted than it does good? How might this
alternative impact the larger community?
– Empathy – Does this alternative allow me to treat others the way I would like to be
treated?
(5) Identify a decision and explain how your consideration of the factors listed in #4
supports that decision.
(6) Reflect on the ethics decision outcome.
–
What insights have you gained from using this ethics decision-making process?
Part II: Legal Issues:
a. Write out the seven questions listed in the video and write out your answers
based on the Sanfiel v. Department of Health case.
b. Be prepared to take a position for the side that you favor in each case from an
ethical standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Is there a difference in your
legal opinion and your ethical opinion?
I look forward to meeting you at our first class meeting!
Sandy Benson, J.D.
BLAW 6500 Spring 2019 A2 Revised 2/13/19
Page 2
Page 1
749 So.2d 525, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2831
(Cite as: 749 So.2d 525)
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fifth District.
Jose N. PROENZA SANFIEL, R.N., Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.
No. 98-1717.
Dec. 17, 1999.
Nurse appealed final order issued by Department
of Health, suspending his psychiatric nursing license
and placing nurse on probation for five years for disclosing confidential patient information. The District
Court of Appeal, Thompson, J., held that nurse’s actions of intentionally disclosing confidential patient
information to news media was unprofessional conduct, justifying suspension of nurse’s psychiatric
nursing license and five-year probation.
Affirmed.
*525 Jose N. Proenza Sanfiel, St. Cloud, pro se.
Kathryn L. Kasprzak, Senior Attorney for the Agency
for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee.
THOMPSON, J.
Jose N. Proenza Sanfiel appeals a final order issued by the State Board of Nursing following disciplinary proceedings. The order suspends Proenza
Sanfiel’s psychiatric nursing license and places him on
probation for five years for disclosing confidential
patient information. We affirm.
Proenza Sanfiel raises several issues which have
no merit. We address one issue: whether the State
Board of Nursing was authorized to suspend Proenza
Sanfiel’s license because of his conduct involving
patients not under his care.
Proenza Sanfiel obtained a computer FN1 which
was previously owned by Charter Behavioral Health
System(“Charter”), a psychiatric hospital in Orlando.
Charter’s *526 patient records were contained in the
computer. Proenza Sanfiel testified that he reviewed
this information and recalled that Charter was being
investigated for defrauding the government. He contacted local law enforcement and the state attorney’s
office to initiate a criminal investigation. The agencies
declined, telling him that the matter was outside their
jurisdictions. Proenza Sanfiel then called the news
media and allowed them to see the information concerning the patients. He asked that the patients’ names
be blurred to protect their identity. He believed that
the information on the computer should have been
erased before the computer was donated as surplus. He
told reporters that the hard drive contained the names
of psychiatric patients, their admission dates, types of
addiction, treatments and psychiatric disorders. The
story was broadcast along with the patients’ names and
diagnoses shown on the computer screen. One of the
journalists located and interviewed a patient identified
from Sanfiel’s computer. The patient was tremendously distraught over the fact that his confidential
medical information was being exposed to the public.
An unknown number of other patients were also contacted by the news media.
FN1. Proenza Sanfiel testified that he obtained the computer from a thrift shop for
$20. The executive director of the shop testified there were no records of any purchase
of a computer at any time by Proenza Sanfiel.
Charter maintains it did not donate the
computer to the thrift shop.
The State Agency for Health Care Administration
(“AHCA”) immediately began investigating and ordered an emergency suspension of Proenza Sanfiel’s
nursing license. When the representative for AHCA
asked for the hard drive with the patients’ confidential
information, Proenza Sanfiel refused to surrender it.
When representatives from Charter asked that the
computer be returned, Proenza Sanfiel again refused,
but suggested he would be willing to return the computer and the information for $20,000. Charter obtained an injunction prohibiting Proenza Sanfiel from
disclosing confidential patient information.
Proenza Sanfiel does not dispute that he made the
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
749 So.2d 525, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2831
(Cite as: 749 So.2d 525)
disclosure or that as a psychiatric nurse he knew that
the information on the computer was confidential. He
admitted that he was aware that a nurse could be disciplined for disclosing confidential psychiatric information to unauthorized persons. However, he argues that he could not be punished because he was
acting in a private capacity and not as a nurse to the
patients whose records were contained on the computer.
[1] The Board’s authority to discipline Proenza
Sanfiel is derived from Chapters 455 and 464, Florida
Statutes. Chapter 455 contains general provisions for
the regulation of all professions, while Chapter 464
specifically addresses nursing. Proenza Sanfiel may
not have been practicing nursing in January 1997, but
he was licensed and his license was active and evidently in good standing. Therefore, the Board had
jurisdiction to discipline him. Compare Boedy v. Dept.
of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 433 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (Board of
Medical Examiners had jurisdiction to discipline
physician whose license was inactive) with Taylor v.
Dept. of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical
Examiners, 534 So.2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
(Board of Medical Examiners lacked jurisdiction to
discipline physician for professional misconduct
which occurred before he became licensed). That
Proenza Sanfiel was not working as a nurse and had no
professional relationship with the patients whose records were on his computer has no bearing on the
Board’s jurisdiction to discipline him. Rather, those
circumstances are relevant to whether he may be disciplined for his actions.
[2][3][4] Under section 464.108(1)(l ), Florida
Statutes (1997), Proenza Sanfiel could be disciplined
for “[k]nowingly violating any provision of this
chapter, a rule of the board or the department, or a
lawful order of the board or department previously
entered in a disciplinary proceeding*527 or failing to
comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the department.” The Board the determined that Proenza
Sanfiel violated Florida Administrative Code Rule
59S-8.005(1)(e) “by violating the confidentiality of
information or knowledge concerning a patient.” An
agency’s interpretation of a statute or rule it has authority to administer should receive deference from a
reviewing court and should not be overturned unless it
is clearly erroneous. Okeechobee Health Care v. Collins, 726 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Republic
Media, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 714 So.2d 1203 (Fla.
5th DCA 1998); Metropolitan Dade County v. State
Dept. of Environmental Protection, 714 So.2d 512
(Fla. 3d DCA 1998). So long as the agency’s interpretation “is within the range of possible and reasonable,” it should be affirmed. Republic Media at 1205
(citing Natelson v. Dept. of Insurance, 454 So.2d 31
(Fla. 1st DCA 1984)).
Rule 59S-8.005 FN2 states in part that unprofessional conduct includes violating the confidentiality of
information or knowledge concerning a patient. The
Board reasonably interpreted this provision to apply to
the circumstances present in this case. Proenza Sanfiel
testified that he knew the information he possessed
was confidential patient information, and that he understood the danger in disclosing psychiatric records
to unauthorized persons. He knew that a nurse could
be disciplined for disclosing such information, yet he
intentionally released the information to the news
media. It is reasonable to characterize Proenza Sanfiel’s actions as unprofessional conduct even though
Proenza Sanfiel was acting in a “private” capacity.
Therefore, we do not disturb the Board’s determination.
FN2. Rule 59S-8.005 has been renumbered
and is now Rule 64B9-8.005.
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Fla.App. 5 Dist.,1999.
Proenza Sanfiel v. Department of Health
749 So.2d 525, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2831
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
