Answer:
And the January jobs numbers came out today. And while we are grateful for everyone who found work and is earning a paycheck, it is very clear our economy is still in trouble. We added just 6,000 private sector jobs in the country last month. Overall, we added 49,000 jobs. And this at a time when we have more than 10 million people out of work, 4 million people have been out of work for six months or longer, and 2.5 million women have been driven from the workforce. Fifteen million Americans are behind in their rental payments. Twenty-four million adults and twelve million children literally don’t have enough food to eat.
Within the law, you are permitted to release the record to the husband, hence you should go ahead a give this information to the husband.
See the explanation below
<h3>The law behind the release of medical information.</h3>
According to the HIPAA Privacy Rule at 45 CFR 164.510(b)
"specifically permits covered entities to share information that is directly relevant to the involvement of a spouse".
However, as a professional, you are not supposed to release information of a patient to an unknown person, in such a case the patient must approve of this first before you go ahead to give it out.
Learn more about the HIPAA Privacy Rule here:
brainly.com/question/11069745
#SPJ1
Answer:
False
Explanation:
Ambiguity in contracts can be voided if subjected to more than one interpretation and may be dismissed as evidence if the court has determined the Contract falls under ambiguity.
In most cases, trespass is a misdemeanor. This means it can lead to penalties of up to six (6) months in county jail and/or a fine of up to one thousand dollars . Like jail sentences, trespassing fines are dependent on state law and the circumstances of the crime, and laws allow courts to impose a range of fines. Do what you will with this info
What is Katz argument: The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court.
What is the Katz v United States holding: The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court.
