In its ruling of 20 February 2018, the German Federal Supreme Court (‘BGH’) decided that the physician rating portal ‘Jameda’ must delete a physician’s profile completely under data protection law, since the physician’s privacy rights prevail with respect to the provider’s freedom of speech, the provider having gone beyond its position as a “neutral information provider1.” Dr Niels Lutzhöft and Dr Christoph Hendel of Bird & Bird, discuss the case in detail and the wider implications. /
read more
The Florida Supreme Court ruled, on 9 November 2017, in Emma Gayle Weaver, etc. v. Stephen C. Myers, M.D., et al., that the right to privacy under Florida’s Constitution does not end upon an individual’s death. The ruling concerned a medical malpractice claim brought by Weaver as an individual and as representative of the estate of her late husband. In particular, Weaver challenged the constitutionality of the 2013 amendments to Sections 766.106 and 766.1065 of the Florida Statutes (‘the Amendments’), which relate to disclosures that should be made as part of medical negligence actions, on the basis that these violated the right to privacy under Florida’s Constitution. The Florida Statutes and the Amendments required Weaver to authorise the release of her husband’s protected health information (‘PHI’), which she alleged was irrelevant to the case, as well as to consent to secret, ex parte interviews between the health providers and the defendant or his legal representatives, in order to proceed with the medical negligence action. /
read more
The German Federal Supreme Court (‘FSC’) released on 1 March its judgment in case no. VI ZR 34/15, in which it specified the monitoring duties of medical professional review portal operators, finding it necessary in some cases for such operators to verify the validity of user reviews.
/
read more
