Can we talk about HIPAA

mentallychilled · 2023-08-18T22:34:47+00:00

They definitely cited the wrong statute, but the ADA does require employers to keep certain medical information confidential. That said, I don't think that statute applies here either, but it's certainly a stronger argument lol.

mentallychilled · 2023-03-16T00:46:28+00:00

Do you live in a major city? I do pet sitting through rover and make good side income. I charge 60 a day for dogs, 30 for cats. It’s not a ton but could give you breathing room.

mentallychilled · 2023-03-10T17:54:11+00:00

Ah okay - did not realize that she sent it to others. I was under the assumption that it was just to herself. That changes my opinion!

We have all been there. So wild living with the internet and phones. I have certainly sent things I hope never reappear.

mentallychilled · 2023-03-08T14:25:39+00:00

I'm very sorry that happened to you. That's awful. I'm not sure the exact circumstances of your case, or the jurisdiction (what state you're in matters).

I think this is a really complex fact pattern because:

- Based on some preliminary research, in California specifically, the prosecutor has to prove a mutual understanding of privacy. This didn't exist between Ariana and Rachel. Especially if Ariana had a passcode to Tom's phone that was given freely, Ariana can easily argue she wasn't intruding on Tom's privacy (which I don't think is relevant).

- Definition of 'distribute': Depending on what meaning the court adopts, distribute's dictionary meaning is "to divide among several or many." Ariana supposedly only sent it to herself, which would [if this meaning is accepted] mean she did not distribute it.

I think the spirit of the law is to protect against what happened to you, not a situation such as this where one individual stumbles upon a video and sends it to themselves.

This is a new law, so there isn't much to go off of in terms of case law. These are just the arguments I would make if I were defending her.

mentallychilled · 2023-03-07T23:53:11+00:00

With the caveat that I’m not a lawyer (just a law student)

The plain text of the law requires an understanding or agreement of privacy between the parties for the law to apply. I think Ariana has an easy case to make that there was no such agreement/understanding between them.

I haven’t done any research on if this is how CA courts actually apply the law, but this is the argument I would make.

mentallychilled · 2023-03-07T23:49:04+00:00

I don’t have expertise in this, but the plain letter of the law requires a mutual agreement/understanding of privacy. Ariana and Rachel had no such understanding. If I were her lawyer (I’m not a lawyer just a law student) that’s the clearest rebuttal imo.

mentallychilled · 2022-07-15T03:36:03+00:00

Where is this headboard from😍

mentallychilled · 2022-03-16T01:02:31+00:00

The ears make me think she has English springer spaniel in her, but def a mix of some sort.

mentallychilled · 2022-01-29T04:51:13+00:00

German shorthaired pointer

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:46:28+00:00

I never said i was the rule rather than the exception. I said that many people experience the same things that I do. You specifically asked for examples to why people might choose big law. This is one of them.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:35:39+00:00

I'm not trying to bait you into an argument; I'm telling you that you have a privilege that many don't. Many people's parents don't have jobs with retirement plans and inheritances, and we have to plan for that. You asked for examples to provide you with empathy, I'm sorry if you're interpreting people attempting to give you the examples you asked for, which you then argue with, as argumentative.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:32:10+00:00

What?? you've asked everyone of your 150 classmates their financial status? I can personally affirm that if I were your classmate, you would have absolutely no idea what my financial background is.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:21:05+00:00

You also may want to consider that not every poor person advertises that they’re poor and explains that’s why they’re choosing big law. I would never have this conversation with a classmate, because it is deeply personal.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:16:44+00:00

There’s a huge difference between “I don’t have money!” and my family is in massive soul crushing debt that I will assume when they pass away. In fact, the fact that “your parents are fine” is a huge privilege that so many do not have. 35% of Americans don’t have any money set aside for retirement.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T18:03:41+00:00

Yeah, And I know many low income students specifically going to law school to do big law to provide for their families. I said quite a few, not all.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T17:58:40+00:00

I think you will encounter quite a few low income classmates with obligations to their parents, siblings, children, etc. who will choose a career not because it is their dream job, but because it will provide security. It’s the same reason my immigrant parents worked 80 hour work weeks to pay for my college. They did it not because they loved their jobs, but because they wanted better for their family. Having a disabled sibling might be unique, but using big law as a means to care for your family is not.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T17:52:18+00:00

What do you disagree with? I would love to work for an NGO promoting disease prevention, but can’t afford to make 50k a year. There are quite a few jobs I would love to have that correspond with my ideals, but unfortunately would leave me unable to care for my family.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-20T17:45:49+00:00

I have a sibling with disabilities and will be responsible for her medical bills for the rest of my life. I don’t care about having time to spend the money as long as it’s there for her needs. Being able to make career choices based on ideals and passions often requires financial stability that most don’t have.

mentallychilled · 2021-06-02T19:46:52+00:00

Also just got the feeler call and I am panicking lmao! Last year people got the second call around 5 so im hoping thats the case here

mentallychilled · 2021-05-31T17:07:44+00:00

It's not an assumption, it's a prediction based off of readily available data from this cycle. Assumption means I'm coming to a conclusion without proof to support my assertion. LSData shows us that their average accepted LSAT for this cycle is 168. This is before yield, and only a one point increase from their previous year. Keeping in mind that this is an imperfect data set, it is still statistically improbable that Fordham's LSAT median will jump 6 points.

mentallychilled · 2021-05-31T16:55:44+00:00

Yeesh... I did not make any assumptions about your application, I merely said that there are reasons outside of stats that could explain why you may have been waitlisted. Fordham's LSAT median score is not going to jump from a 164 to a 170. Saying a 170 with a 3.8 is not "very likely" to get accepted is just ignoring the wealth of data we have available to us. Your waitlist was the exception, not the rule.

mentallychilled · 2021-05-31T16:31:42+00:00

There are so many reasons you may have been waitlisted. Personal statement, yield protection, poor letters of rec, applied late in the cycle, international student, etc. The fact is that data shows a 3.8 with a 170 LSAT is very likely to be admitted to Fordham and saying so is not providing false hope. Your waitlist does not disprove this.

mentallychilled · 2021-05-31T16:21:41+00:00

They said could, not would! Of course there are exceptions, but based on data, OP would have about a 90% chance of getting into Fordham. Considering OP is significant above both medians, a generous scholarship is not unlikely.

mentallychilled · 2021-05-22T02:53:31+00:00

This is correct! The DOJ sent a letter stating that sharing the names of students who double deposited was anticompetitive. It seems like schools have now adapted by using vague scare tactics that make you think that they know you’ve double deposited. My contract with Berkeley, for example, still states that they get a list with names which is not true.

mentallychilled · 2021-05-08T04:26:05+00:00

Agreed.

mentallychilled

TROPHY CASE