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:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
Discovery! The discovery of the information that was found
Answer:
People like to call in and request to be anonymous because they know they are being nosy, or dramatic about a situation. Not always the reason though. But anonymous calls tend to have wrong information in them and can sometimes be completely false, and a way for one person to just try and get someone else in trouble. The problem with that is, you can't do a follow up depending on your department policy. Unless there is some sort of evidence, the person can't be charged, and by not having an available witness, it basically just makes the call a checkup to make sure no one is doing anything wrong.
No, unless a truly barbaric crime has occured, there should be no follow up. The caller wanted to be anonymous, so let them be anonymous unless they decide to come forward with more information.
Explanation:
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
In my opinion I think Law enforcement officers do better than good. Although I agree there are some good cops, I think the bad overrides the good. I also think that they are supposed to help helping us, not taking advantage of they're badge. For example, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Tamir Rice, etc.
