Judge rules Rush's medical records were properly seized
Rush Limbaugh's medical records were properly seized by investigators seeking information on alleged illegal drug use, an appeals court ruled Wednesday. State investigators had raided the offices of Limbaugh's doctors seeking info on whether he illegally tried to buy prescription painkillers. Limbaugh still hasn't been charged with a crime and the investigation had been put on hold pending this decision.
"We hold that the constitutional right of privacy in medical records is not implicated by the State's seizure and review of medical records under a valid search warrant without prior notice or hearing," a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled.
Prosecutors went after the medical records after learning Rush had been allegedly buying illegal painkillers from his former housekeeper. He had also received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. Limbaugh admitted to his addiction with pain medication (Oxycontin, Hydrocodone/Vicodin) last October, saying it began with severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his show to enter rehab.
Limbaugh's attorney Roy Black argued before the appellate court in April that investigators should have provided some notice they were going to seize records containing private information, instead of using search warrants and giving Limbaugh no chance to challenge the seizure.
Black issued the following statement: "We strongly disagree with the decision of the Court majority because it does not recognize a patient's right to medical privacy that the Congress, the Florida Legislature and the citizens of Florida have granted to patients such as Mr. Limbaugh, who has not even been charged with anything. There was no doctor shopping, but Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to privacy to prove his innocence. We are encouraged by the strong dissent of Judge May who clearly recognized that the state cannot trump a patient's right to privacy in medical matters. We will be seeking further appellate review of this decision."
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?