Tweet
Revealed: Hawaii Keeps Autopsy Report Top Secret; Evidence Of Fuddy Death Withheld
Birther Report
4/18/2014
Excerpt:
Hawaii Keeps Autopsy Report Top Secret: Evidence of death for Director of Health Loretta Fuddy withheld
Linda Jordan | BirtherReport.com
Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (HRS 92F) [1] classifies medical examiner autopsy reports as public records subject to UIPA and dictates that copies be released to an “agency or business entity” upon request. [2] Accordingly this reporter requested Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy report on April 7, 2014. [3]
When I opened my copy a week or so later I was surprised to find the seven page report was a big black hole. Every single medical observation noted during the autopsy detailing the physical examination of Loretta’s body, had faded to black.
Citing HRS 92F-13(1)(4), 92F-22 [4] and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) [5] the Maui Police Department had taken a virtual Sharpie to almost every word of the Medical Examiner’s report before releasing it.
The Hawaii Office of Information Practices (OIP) [6] is charged with administering UIPA. OIP has concluded several times that Hawaii autopsy reports are subject to UIPA and that “deceased individuals do not have a recognizable privacy interest in their autopsy reports “. [7] In fact this December 31, 1991 OIP opinion also concluded that, “Our research disclosed no provision of chapter 841, Hawaii Revised Statutes, entitled “Inquests, Coroners,” that expressly prohibits the disclosure of autopsy reports. Accordingly, it is our opinion that autopsy reports are not protected from disclosure by section 92F-13(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes.” [8] I find no evidence that HRS 841 been repealed or amended to void this section.
However, in 2003, an OIP opinion determined that, in light of HIPAA, their previous views on the rights of deceased individuals “medical records” needed to be re-visited and concluded that medical records from agencies covered under HIPAA, would also be kept private under UIPA.
But here’s the problem, coroners and medical examiners are not considered a “covered entity” under HIPAA. They are not a health care provider, a health care plan or a health care clearinghouse. [9]
http://healthjournalism.org/resource...2#.U1BNW1VdXKg
The overall consensus is that HIPAA does not apply to coroners and autopsy reports.
Greg Frost [10], a lawyer who has spent years working on HIPAA implementation issues says that coroner records are not covered by HIPAA because they do not provide a medical service or submit billing for medical services. Because of this, reporters are almost always better off going to coroners to get medical information rather than hospitals or doctors.
According to the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press autopsy reports prepared by the Medical Examiner in Hawaii are public records not subject to HIPAA. [11]
The 2003 OIP opinion also tried to expand HIPAA restrictions to agencies not covered under HIPAA. This would be an outrageous misapplication of HIPAA and in direct conflict with Hawaii law, HRS 92F, HRS 841and the majority of OIP’s legal opinions which make it clear that autopsy reports, a document that understandably contain personal information about the decedents body, health and manner of death, are public records.
Hawaii can’t say that autopsy reports are public records under two HRS statutes, and then blame HIPAA for virtually redacting the entire document before releasing it. HIPAA does not apply to medical examiners and autopsy reports. The Maui Police Department currently provides a public records request form for autopsy reports. They do this because it is considered a public record. That’s why the Associated Press got a copy of it and I got a copy of it. Not.
Let’s look at some of the redactions on Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy report:
Aside from blacking out every medical observation made during the autopsy, every lab result, and all imaging studies that were used to “explain her death”, they blacked out her date of birth. This date of birth was printed in her obituary. Why would they black that out?
Other examples, “The decedent is a BLANK female who was a passenger involved in a commercial aircraft crash in ocean waters.” The blank looks like 6 or 7 letters could fit in it. And, “She was reportedly markedly afraid, and BLANK while waiting for rescue personnel to arrive.” This blank might fit 8 or 9 letters. “She was witnessed to become BLANK and was subsequently pronounced dead after being brought to shore.”and “Witnesses to be fearful and BLANKBLANKBLANK.” A really long blank.
How are these BLANKS so much more personal than the words that come before and after? And recall that all witness accounts at the actual time of the crash contradict this version of events presented in the autopsy report. No witness said that Loretta was “markedly afraid”, “fearful” and “hyperventilating”. Two people specifically said that she was doing fine in the water and they were very surprised to later learn that she had died. We only have one different second hand account. Fuddy’s Deputy Director, Keith Yamamoto, purportedly told someone on shore that he had held Loretta’s hand and tried to help her “relax”.
It is interesting to note that the Medical Examiner writes on page one of her report that the “Expiration Date” for Loretta is “12/11/2013” but the “Date of Death” for Loretta is “Friday, December 13, 2013”. Probably a typo but that’s a pretty big typo. She writes that, “Scene and pertinent historical information [in this report] is provided via verbal report from National Transportation Safety Board Investigators.”
This is in direct conflict with NTSB protocol. In response to my FOIA request for a copy of investigation documents I was told that the investigation into the forced ocean landing of the plane Loretta was on is pending and ongoing. Because of that, “The Safety Board does not release records from pending investigations, because such release would impede the progress of the investigation and deter uninhibited deliberations and discussions regarding certain aspects of the investigation.” and “The Safety Board cannot guarantee that preliminary materials, such as records from a pending investigation, would be accurate or complete; therefore, release of such information would result in confusion and compromise the Board’s work.” [12] This makes perfect sense.
If the NTSB’s body of investigative work is considered private, until they release their final report, why would they release some of it to the Medical Examiner who in turn made it public? That makes no sense. And none of the language the medical examiner uses in her report about “markedly afraid”, “fearful”, “hyperventilating”, “not a good swimmer”, is in the NTSB preliminary report they posted online. [13] So where did this language, these “facts”, come from?
Closing:
I’m sorry that Loretta’s gone and I feel for her family. They have lost a beloved sister and aunt. And people won’t let them alone. As a family member, I wouldn’t give a damn about these legal opinions and the law. I would want to keep the personal details about the body, health and manner of death of my loved one private.
However, Loretta was involved, knowingly or not, in the production of Barack Obama’s forged birth certificate and now she’s dead. She stepped into that vault at the Hawaii Department of Health and into history. She retrieved something from that room and purportedly passed it off to Obama’s lawyer Judith Corley. Two days later, on April 27, 2011, a PDF image of a forged Hawaiian birth certificate was posted on the White House website. There is a huge, valid public interest in her death. It is a suspicious death and refusing to release her autopsy just adds to the controversy. If one does not skirt Hawaii law, the autopsy report, with minor redactions (unless law enforcement is investigating a murder), must be released.
We may never know if Loretta handed that forged PDF file to Corley. Her brother says that she would never be involved with anything like that. I tend to believe him. At worst maybe she unwittingly participated.
Maybe she did give Corley two paper photo copies of Obama’s original birth certificate. That’s what he had asked her for. If so, particularly given the forgery posted on the White House website, we have a right to see what it says on that birth certificate. To see what Barack Obama is hiding. Maybe it will finally reveal where he was born, who his parents are, if he is a citizen of this country, if he is a natural born citizen and if he’s even eligible to be POTUS.
Loretta can no longer answer the questions that only she could have answered, [14] but perhaps her death has a story to tell. One that might help shed some light on the truth.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/04...sy-report.html
CONTINUED IN THE FOLLOWING REPLY
Birther Report
4/18/2014
Excerpt:
Hawaii Keeps Autopsy Report Top Secret: Evidence of death for Director of Health Loretta Fuddy withheld
Linda Jordan | BirtherReport.com
Hawaii’s Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (HRS 92F) [1] classifies medical examiner autopsy reports as public records subject to UIPA and dictates that copies be released to an “agency or business entity” upon request. [2] Accordingly this reporter requested Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy report on April 7, 2014. [3]
When I opened my copy a week or so later I was surprised to find the seven page report was a big black hole. Every single medical observation noted during the autopsy detailing the physical examination of Loretta’s body, had faded to black.
Citing HRS 92F-13(1)(4), 92F-22 [4] and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) [5] the Maui Police Department had taken a virtual Sharpie to almost every word of the Medical Examiner’s report before releasing it.
The Hawaii Office of Information Practices (OIP) [6] is charged with administering UIPA. OIP has concluded several times that Hawaii autopsy reports are subject to UIPA and that “deceased individuals do not have a recognizable privacy interest in their autopsy reports “. [7] In fact this December 31, 1991 OIP opinion also concluded that, “Our research disclosed no provision of chapter 841, Hawaii Revised Statutes, entitled “Inquests, Coroners,” that expressly prohibits the disclosure of autopsy reports. Accordingly, it is our opinion that autopsy reports are not protected from disclosure by section 92F-13(4), Hawaii Revised Statutes.” [8] I find no evidence that HRS 841 been repealed or amended to void this section.
However, in 2003, an OIP opinion determined that, in light of HIPAA, their previous views on the rights of deceased individuals “medical records” needed to be re-visited and concluded that medical records from agencies covered under HIPAA, would also be kept private under UIPA.
But here’s the problem, coroners and medical examiners are not considered a “covered entity” under HIPAA. They are not a health care provider, a health care plan or a health care clearinghouse. [9]
http://healthjournalism.org/resource...2#.U1BNW1VdXKg
The overall consensus is that HIPAA does not apply to coroners and autopsy reports.
Greg Frost [10], a lawyer who has spent years working on HIPAA implementation issues says that coroner records are not covered by HIPAA because they do not provide a medical service or submit billing for medical services. Because of this, reporters are almost always better off going to coroners to get medical information rather than hospitals or doctors.
According to the Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press autopsy reports prepared by the Medical Examiner in Hawaii are public records not subject to HIPAA. [11]
The 2003 OIP opinion also tried to expand HIPAA restrictions to agencies not covered under HIPAA. This would be an outrageous misapplication of HIPAA and in direct conflict with Hawaii law, HRS 92F, HRS 841and the majority of OIP’s legal opinions which make it clear that autopsy reports, a document that understandably contain personal information about the decedents body, health and manner of death, are public records.
Hawaii can’t say that autopsy reports are public records under two HRS statutes, and then blame HIPAA for virtually redacting the entire document before releasing it. HIPAA does not apply to medical examiners and autopsy reports. The Maui Police Department currently provides a public records request form for autopsy reports. They do this because it is considered a public record. That’s why the Associated Press got a copy of it and I got a copy of it. Not.
Let’s look at some of the redactions on Loretta Fuddy’s autopsy report:
Aside from blacking out every medical observation made during the autopsy, every lab result, and all imaging studies that were used to “explain her death”, they blacked out her date of birth. This date of birth was printed in her obituary. Why would they black that out?
Other examples, “The decedent is a BLANK female who was a passenger involved in a commercial aircraft crash in ocean waters.” The blank looks like 6 or 7 letters could fit in it. And, “She was reportedly markedly afraid, and BLANK while waiting for rescue personnel to arrive.” This blank might fit 8 or 9 letters. “She was witnessed to become BLANK and was subsequently pronounced dead after being brought to shore.”and “Witnesses to be fearful and BLANKBLANKBLANK.” A really long blank.
How are these BLANKS so much more personal than the words that come before and after? And recall that all witness accounts at the actual time of the crash contradict this version of events presented in the autopsy report. No witness said that Loretta was “markedly afraid”, “fearful” and “hyperventilating”. Two people specifically said that she was doing fine in the water and they were very surprised to later learn that she had died. We only have one different second hand account. Fuddy’s Deputy Director, Keith Yamamoto, purportedly told someone on shore that he had held Loretta’s hand and tried to help her “relax”.
It is interesting to note that the Medical Examiner writes on page one of her report that the “Expiration Date” for Loretta is “12/11/2013” but the “Date of Death” for Loretta is “Friday, December 13, 2013”. Probably a typo but that’s a pretty big typo. She writes that, “Scene and pertinent historical information [in this report] is provided via verbal report from National Transportation Safety Board Investigators.”
This is in direct conflict with NTSB protocol. In response to my FOIA request for a copy of investigation documents I was told that the investigation into the forced ocean landing of the plane Loretta was on is pending and ongoing. Because of that, “The Safety Board does not release records from pending investigations, because such release would impede the progress of the investigation and deter uninhibited deliberations and discussions regarding certain aspects of the investigation.” and “The Safety Board cannot guarantee that preliminary materials, such as records from a pending investigation, would be accurate or complete; therefore, release of such information would result in confusion and compromise the Board’s work.” [12] This makes perfect sense.
If the NTSB’s body of investigative work is considered private, until they release their final report, why would they release some of it to the Medical Examiner who in turn made it public? That makes no sense. And none of the language the medical examiner uses in her report about “markedly afraid”, “fearful”, “hyperventilating”, “not a good swimmer”, is in the NTSB preliminary report they posted online. [13] So where did this language, these “facts”, come from?
Closing:
I’m sorry that Loretta’s gone and I feel for her family. They have lost a beloved sister and aunt. And people won’t let them alone. As a family member, I wouldn’t give a damn about these legal opinions and the law. I would want to keep the personal details about the body, health and manner of death of my loved one private.
However, Loretta was involved, knowingly or not, in the production of Barack Obama’s forged birth certificate and now she’s dead. She stepped into that vault at the Hawaii Department of Health and into history. She retrieved something from that room and purportedly passed it off to Obama’s lawyer Judith Corley. Two days later, on April 27, 2011, a PDF image of a forged Hawaiian birth certificate was posted on the White House website. There is a huge, valid public interest in her death. It is a suspicious death and refusing to release her autopsy just adds to the controversy. If one does not skirt Hawaii law, the autopsy report, with minor redactions (unless law enforcement is investigating a murder), must be released.
We may never know if Loretta handed that forged PDF file to Corley. Her brother says that she would never be involved with anything like that. I tend to believe him. At worst maybe she unwittingly participated.
Maybe she did give Corley two paper photo copies of Obama’s original birth certificate. That’s what he had asked her for. If so, particularly given the forgery posted on the White House website, we have a right to see what it says on that birth certificate. To see what Barack Obama is hiding. Maybe it will finally reveal where he was born, who his parents are, if he is a citizen of this country, if he is a natural born citizen and if he’s even eligible to be POTUS.
Loretta can no longer answer the questions that only she could have answered, [14] but perhaps her death has a story to tell. One that might help shed some light on the truth.
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/04...sy-report.html
CONTINUED IN THE FOLLOWING REPLY
Comment