Answer:
Option A. Liable, because notice to Emmett is notice to Fridley.
Explanation:
The reason is that the principle is liable for the outcome of the Emmett actions in the principle's behalf. So it is clear that Fridley is liable. The agent have to work in the best interest of its principal which means that the failure to notify the additional tax liability to Fridley was part of agent's fiduciary duty. This means that the principle can sue its agent for the consequences of not placing the sufficient care to its principle.
The Fridley is also responsible because Emmett is acting as Fridley which means the notice to Emmett is actually notice to Fridley.
HIPAA's Security Rule at §164.308 - Administrative safeguards starts with (a) "A covered entity or business associate must, in accordance with §164.306", and then continues to make various calls to "Implement policies and procedures" ...
Then, on the Privacy Rule, a BA is not directly required to comply with the Privacy Rule, except as specified within the Security Rule, but may be required to comply with those sections of the Privacy Rule that are specified in the contract or BAA (requirement) with its Covered Entity clients.
Globalization of business has affected man in many ways.
In term of communication, businesses has to learn and abide by the culture of the places where their companies are located. They have to learn and abide by the political and legal regulations that are operating in the place. Cross - cultural communication challenge has to be overcome with sensitivity and openness.
