JPP injured in fireworks accident

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I think it's a bit presumptive to assume they were "sniffing around the hospital". I think it's much more likely that an excited employee snapped the pics and sent them in to ESPN to get their (albeit anonymous) 15 minutes.
It's not necessarily an either/or situation.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
JayMags71 said:
It's not necessarily an either/or situation.
Of course not, I just think it's a bit out there to think Adam Schefter was skulking around the hospital trying for a screen grab, or really even that they would send an intern to do it. I think most hospitals would be a bit suspicious of someone with no purpose being there. Maybe I'm being naive but I find it much more likely an idiotic employee did it and sent it in so they could see it on TV and high five their friends.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Bigpupp said:
If ESPN employees stopped throwing shit against the wall at every opportunity then maybe Schefter wouldn't have felt like it was necessary to "prove" his report. This is 100% on him and ESPN as a whole and I'm a little surprised the NFLPA hasn't issued an a statement regarding the matter.
 
They haven't issued a statement on this matter because their beef isn't with Schefter.  It's with the Hospital and the specific person who leaked the information.
 
I'll actually be shocked if the union goes after Schefter.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
djbayko said:
Exactly. I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer this.
I'll answer:no. The only difference is that by posting the screenshot/paperwork Schefter makes it clear that his source was someone at the hospital who had a professional duty not to give this information. If he had just said his finger was amputated we wouldn't know if the information came from the hospital or his agent or the team or a friend or his wife etc. And obviously some of those other potential sources wouldn't indicate the same breach of privacy.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
My guess is that Schefter published the photo because he had no relationship or duty to his source, and he figured it was better to post the pic than have people speculate whether JPP's agent or the Giants' FO was the source of the leak, which could hurt Schefter's relationship with more regular sources of information.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Papelbon said:
Of course not, I just think it's a bit out there to think Adam Schefter was skulking around the hospital trying for a screen grab, or really even that they would send an intern to do it.
I agree that it's "out there" that Schefter was skulking around. I don't think it's "out there" to suggest that an intern was sent to do it. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but: what would the consequences be if an ESPN intern were to be caught? Would the police have a reason to get involved? Would it be an arrestable offense? Off the top of my head, an intern wouldn't have anything to lose. But I could be wrong.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
18,972
Pittsburgh, PA
djbayko said:
Exactly. I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer this.
How would you feel if, instead of his medical records being published, Schefter Tweeted a picture covertly taken by a nurse of an unconscious JPP laying on an operating room table, his badly damaged and bloodied hand being sawed open by a surgeon.

Same thing, right? It's the same information as his hospital chart.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
djbayko said:
Exactly. I'm still waiting to hear anyone answer this.
For one thing, there's a hell of a lot more information on that screenshot that what a tweet of "his finger got amputated" would provide.  It's not even my field, but it looks like it at least indicates that there could be issues like loss of sensation in the remaining areas, possible necrosis/infection, pin insertion and more that he's likely to be dealing with.  Not to mention contextual things like who his doctor is, procedure timing, etc.  I would imagine that to a hand surgeon, there's a hell of a lot they could surmise from those notes, not all of which JPP may want public (or would inevitably become public as soon as someone takes a picture of him leaving the hospital).
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
finnVT said:
For one thing, there's a hell of a lot more information on that screenshot that what a tweet of "his finger got amputated" would provide.  It's not even my field, but it looks like it at least indicates that there could be issues like loss of sensation in the remaining areas, possible necrosis/infection, pin insertion and more that he's likely to be dealing with.  Not to mention contextual things like who his doctor is, procedure timing, etc.  I would imagine that to a hand surgeon, there's a hell of a lot they could surmise from those notes, not all of which JPP may want public (or would inevitably become public as soon as someone takes a picture of him leaving the hospital).
You don't think ESPN would have reported that information too? The picture helped make the 140 character limit a non-issue. I think this answer is skirting the question.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
ngruz25 said:
How would you feel if, instead of his medical records being published, Schefter Tweeted a picture covertly taken by a nurse of an unconscious JPP laying on an operating room table, his badly damaged and bloodied hand being sawed open by a surgeon.

Same thing, right? It's the same information as his hospital chart.
Good question . To be honest, I need to think more about how I would feel. On the one hand, this type of thing IS reported all the time, as pictures of victims are taken before people are transported to the hospital. On the other, I would assume a little privacy if I were in the hospital.

However, while it's an interesting hypothetical, it's not in the same stratosphere as the actual leaked picture.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
djbayko said:
You don't think ESPN would have reported that information too? The picture helped make the 140 character limit a non-issue. I think this answer is skirting the question.
Have they been?  I haven't really been following their coverage (because, ESPN), but it seems like most of the commentary/news coverage has focused solely on the lost finger, rather than the other medical issues.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
By sharing the information, Schefter is engaging in classic "moral hazard" behavior.
 
Even if sharing the medical charts is not personally damaging to JPP (or whomever), it doesn't matter. You want to discourage people from sharing private medical information so that potentially damaging scenarios don't happen. It's not that freakin' complicated.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
BigSoxFan said:
Why would JPP's agent leak that information?
 
He/she would not; a disgruntled office employee might.
 
An unsourced Schefter report could lead to lots of finger-pointing among NFL types about who was the source, which might make those folks less likely to talk to Schefter in the future. Publishing the picture spares Schefter all that drama.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
maufman said:
 
He/she would not; a disgruntled office employee might.
 
An unsourced Schefter report could lead to lots of finger-pointing among NFL types about who was the source, which might make those folks less likely to talk to Schefter in the future. Publishing the picture spares Schefter all that drama.
 
He could have tweeted "Saw a photo of medical records from the hospital showing JPP is scheduled to have his index finger amputated." 
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
pappymojo said:
 
He could have tweeted "Saw a photo of medical records from the hospital showing JPP is scheduled to have his index finger amputated." 
 
And he would spend several hours stonewalling a HIPAA investigation. Why would he bring that on himself?
 
The snippet of information relating to another patient should have been redacted. Otherwise, I have zero problem with what Schefter did, assuming he made no promises to his source.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
If they asked, he could just provide the photo to the HIPAA investigators along with any information he had on how he came to be in possession of the photo.
 

cwright

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,454
Amherst, MA
I have absolutely no knowledge of medical rules or HIPAA violations, but I figured I could chime in on this:
TheoShmeo said:
But putting aside the legal implications, I have a football question. Is the loss of a single finger (or whatever JPP's loss actually was) a big impediment for a player in JPP's role?  Asked differently, is this a career ending injury or something JPP will just have to work around?
 
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor; nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
I just spent time in Mass General (last weekend) with a friend who had an accident with a power saw. Without getting into too many gory details, he almost completely severed his index finger and cut into the middle finger as well. Doctors at two hospitals said they couldn't repair the index finger, and suggested amputation, but the hand specialist at Mass General was willing to try to reattach the finger. It took seven hours of surgery, plus five days of observation in a "warm room" at the hospital where they kept blood flowing and monitored the finger to make sure the body wouldn't reject it. He was lucky; they were able to save the finger. It'll probably be about a year before they know how much sensation and movement he'll get back.
 
If my friend had opted for amputation, it probably would've been a one-day stay. Amputation is actually a much more straightforward option, and what we learned is that the index finger is the "best" one to lose. The body naturally compensates by using the middle finger, and most of a person's grip is done with the last three fingers. Think about it - tape your index and middle fingers together.  You don't lose much mobility. For JPP, I imagine it would take some adjustments, but it really shouldn't affect his ability to rush the passer much. Sucks for typing, though.
 
The much bigger concern is the rest of his hand. It sounds like he has burns all over his hand, and probably issues with his other fingers as well. He's going to need the rest of that hand to compensate for the missing finger.
 
Again, not a doctor. Just figured I'd share what I learned.
 

Omar's Wacky Neighbor

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
16,626
Leaving in a bit to the studio :)
Doctors at two hospitals said they couldn't repair the index finger, and suggested amputation, but the hand specialist at Mass General was willing to try to reattach the finger. It took seven hours of surgery, plus five days of observation in a "warm room" at the hospital where they kept blood flowing and monitored the finger to make sure the body wouldn't reject it.
 
 
That means leeches, doesnt it?
 
You can tell us, we watch "The Knick".........
 

cwright

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
2,454
Amherst, MA
Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
That means leeches, doesnt it?
 
You can tell us, we watch "The Knick".........
 
You are correct.  Every two hours, they would hold one of those squirmy little things up to my friend's finger, which had a pin in the end of it to keep blood flowing through.  The leeches pulled blood to the end of the finger and released some sort of compound that kept it from clotting.
 
Disgusting, but fascinating. I had no idea they still used leeches in medicine.
 
Of course, after the leech finished dining, it would die a fat and happy death in a potassium chloride (I think) solution.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,518
Maine
Ronnie Lott thinks JPP and Schefter should Make up and Pinky Promise not to be mad anymore.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
finnVT said:
Have they been?  I haven't really been following their coverage (because, ESPN), but it seems like most of the commentary/news coverage has focused solely on the lost finger, rather than the other medical issues.
Because that's obviously the most sensational part of the story.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
djbayko said:
Because that's obviously the most sensational part of the story.
That's my point.  Short of sharing the image, these are medical issues that they wouldn't bother reporting.  Instead, by sharing the image, they've inadvertently released information that otherwise would have been kept private.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
finnVT said:
That's my point.  Short of sharing the image, these are medical issues that they wouldn't bother reporting.  Instead, by sharing the image, they've inadvertently released information that otherwise would have been kept private.
Then I don't understand your point. It's not like those are even more private and personal details than the amputation. They've just been deemed relatively unimportant. We were talking about why the picture was WORSE than the report, and I just don't see it (outside of the other patient's details, which everyone seems to agree was a SNAFU).

Edit: I should be more clear. I DO understand your point. I don't agree with it. No one really gives a shit about those details compared with the lost finger, so the incremental impact of the picture is nil. ESPN didn't hold back the secondary information because it was over the line - it wasn't newsworthy.
 

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
djbayko said:
Then I don't understand your point. It's not like those are even more private and personal details than the amputation. They've just been deemed relatively unimportant. We were talking about why the picture was WORSE than the report, and I just don't see it (outside of the other patient's details, which everyone seems to agree was a SNAFU).

Edit: I should be more clear. I DO understand your point. I don't agree with it. No one really gives a shit about those details compared with the lost finger, so the incremental impact of the picture is nil. ESPN didn't hold back the secondary information because it was over the line - it wasn't newsworthy.
I agree that the public doesn't care and that as such it isn't newsworthy.  I disagree that future/potential employers (for their impact on performance), insurers (for future medical expenses) and agents (for future earnings) wouldn't care.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,072
Concord, NH
Sorry, hadn't read any of this until just now. Obviously Schefter is an asshole for tweeting the pic. That definitely didn't need to be done. But what else didn't need to be done was someone at the hospital taking pictures of medical records and sending it to the media. IMO, whoever did that SHOULD get into trouble for it.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
“@SportsCenter: BREAKING: Jason Pierre-Paul missing portion of thumb (along with his entire index finger) due to fireworks accident. (via @DanGrazianoESPN)”
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
Ironic in that Shefter is probably one of the least sue-able people at ESPN. Such a rich target zone there, so many more deserving whales.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
This should go about as well as Ryan Howard & Ryan Zimmerman suing Al Jazeera America, right?

Or Brady's doubtless-forthcoming defamation suit against Exponent?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
This should go about as well as Ryan Howard & Ryan Zimmerman suing Al Jazeera America, right?

Or Brady's doubtless-forthcoming defamation suit against Exponent?
Daniel Wallach thinks that under FL law JPP has a strong case against Schefter/ESPN, and that if the case is not dismissed at the initial hearing it will get settled quietly and expensively. IANAL, please look to @WallachLegal or Michael McCann for more details.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Daniel Wallach thinks that under FL law JPP has a strong case against Schefter/ESPN, and that if the case is not dismissed at the initial hearing it will get settled quietly and expensively. IANAL, please look to @WallachLegal or Michael McCann for more details.
He's wrong.

Not about the fact that the case may settle if it survives an initial motion to dismiss, but that this is indicative of a "strong case." JPP's injury was news. ESPN reported it. Other than the justified contempt of the public, they have no liability for doing so. (Here's the key: the first amendment may say "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" but the prohibition extends to state legislatures as well.)

ESPN may still settle, but that would be indicative of their desire not to see the case through - because of the time, expense and bad publicity - rather than any sense that they would ultimately lose at the end of the appeals process.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Again, IANAL, but based on what the legal expert I heard on the radio, the case is not a first amendment case, not in Florida. In FL, it will be a violation of the right to privacy, and HIPAA. Wallach claimed there is no case law where the right of the public to know outweighs an individual's right to the privacy of their medical records.

The public, and ESPN, has no right to the private medical information of JPP. The Giants, as his employer, might. But either way, it has little to do with the first amendment and more to do with FL case law and privacy statutes.

I am sure the legal eagles are flying this way as we speak, right @Rovin Romine @dcmissle @Myt1
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Again, IANAL, but based on what the legal expert I heard on the radio, the case is not a first amendment case, not in Florida. In FL, it will be a violation of the right to privacy, and HIPAA. @dcmissle @Myt1
I write HIPAA auditing tools for a living (and other medical software).

HIPAA applies to caregivers, and other normal stewards of medical records and personal information (like schools, and business that have legally codified agreements with these places - consultants, vendors, etc). Unless ESPN has a business agreement with the hospital here allowing them access to medical records - ESPN has absolutely no obligation under HIPAA - the law simply does not apply to them. (It does apply to the hospital though)

Now, its entirely possible that Florida has other privacy laws that ESPN broke, ( and the lawyers could better speak to that) - but any mention of ESPN and HIPAA together is a red herring.
 
Last edited:

finnVT

superspreadsheeter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2002
2,153
Right, but FIPA (Florida's HIPAA expansion) is way more broad, including in their definition of covered entities. I still don't think ESPN would be included, but it's certainly not limited to the medical industries--"any commercial or governmental entity, including a health care provider and health plan, that acquires, maintains, stores or uses personal information of individuals".. I'm not sure if the law or caselaw has specified whether ESPN's action would cause them to be a "commerical... entity... that acquires... personal information of individuals", but it seems possible.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,078
Right, but FIPA (Florida's HIPAA expansion) is way more broad, including in their definition of covered entities. I still don't think ESPN would be included, but it's certainly not limited to the medical industries--"any commercial or governmental entity, including a health care provider and health plan, that acquires, maintains, stores or uses personal information of individuals".. I'm not sure if the law or caselaw has specified whether ESPN's action would cause them to be a "commerical... entity... that acquires... personal information of individuals", but it seems possible.
With the standard caveat that IANAL, it looks pretty cut and dry that ESPN is in violation there. How could you possibly parse that so that ESPN is a) not a "commercial entity" and b) did not "acquire, maintain, store or use" JPP's medical records?
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
What constitutes a medical record? Those are folders (or the electronic equivalent) showing test results, diagnosis history, indicators tracking over time - basically, a collection of facts. ESPN reported something that they acquired secondhand, which is far short of the intent of HIPAA in my view. Put another way, "The USA is believed to be expanding its presence in Afghanistan!" is not a report on troop movements that undermines national security interests. There are also holes in HIPAA for when disclosure is mandated by state law (e.g. public records).

Then there's the fact that FIPA has no private cause of action. Here's a briefer on the law. It has a broad definition of personal privacy and one of the first obligatory disclosure (to the affected individuals and the state) if and when there is a security breach. It's designed for hacking situations, not press publication.

And that's before you get into, ya know, 1st-amendment stuff. IANAL, but the trend with things like Bartnicki v Vopper (criminal, not civil), Florida Star v BJF (naming rape victim, not medical privacy), Cox Broadcasting, etc seems to be that privacy actions against media organizations won't survive unless they meet the NYT v Sullivan standard.

Here's a handbook from the FL bar association discussing media publication and privacy rights. It cites a lot of cases. IANAL, again, but suffice to say, ESPN has a lot of criteria on which to hang their hats, e.g. newsworthiness.

Bottom line: I'd be willing to bet that JPP is never getting awarded a red cent by the florida courts. ESPN might settle, of course, for other reasons unrelated to the merits.