Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by John Krempask » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:27:00


Haven't found this on a wire but it's being reported as news on 980
Sportstalk in DC.

Apparently, there's been a ruling that under Federal law an employer cannot
release health information about an employee without that employee's
consent...and this applies to sports teams.

So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public, all
information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked and
the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by Mark Hanso » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:58:14


Quote:
> So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public, all
> information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked
and
> the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

Well, a guy making millions (or not) playing baseball isn't any different
than a guy working in a factory: he has certain reasonable expectations of
privacy, among which (in my opinion) is that his medical history is *his*
property, not his employers'. Granted, information on your rotator cuff
isn't the same thing as a test indicating you're HIV-positive, but it's
better to make it *all* private, rather than creating some arbitrary
division between "important" and "unimportant" injuries.

Of course, the wiseguys in Vegas might have a different opinion.

Mark

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by dp » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:04:42


Quote:


> > So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public,
all
> > information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked
> and
> > the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

> Well, a guy making millions (or not) playing baseball isn't any different
> than a guy working in a factory: he has certain reasonable expectations of
> privacy, among which (in my opinion) is that his medical history is *his*
> property, not his employers'. Granted, information on your rotator cuff
> isn't the same thing as a test indicating you're HIV-positive, but it's
> better to make it *all* private, rather than creating some arbitrary
> division between "important" and "unimportant" injuries.

> Of course, the wiseguys in Vegas might have a different opinion.

> Mark

Knowing someone that works for the team could be very profitable.  I'm sure
Vegas will get their lawyers on it if that came to pass.

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by The Maso » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:03:19

Quote:
> > > So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public,
> all
> > > information about injuries that teams currently release could be
blocked
> > and
> > > the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is
released.

> > Well, a guy making millions (or not) playing baseball isn't any
different
> > than a guy working in a factory: he has certain reasonable expectations
of
> > privacy, among which (in my opinion) is that his medical history is
*his*
> > property, not his employers'. Granted, information on your rotator cuff
> > isn't the same thing as a test indicating you're HIV-positive, but it's
> > better to make it *all* private, rather than creating some arbitrary
> > division between "important" and "unimportant" injuries.

> > Of course, the wiseguys in Vegas might have a different opinion.

> > Mark

> Knowing someone that works for the team could be very profitable.  I'm
sure
> Vegas will get their lawyers on it if that came to pass.

This would most certainly be addressed in any CBA (if that ever gets
settled) and the outcome would be the status quo.  The reason the
information is released now is just what is mentioned above, that insider
status would become extremely profitable and the likelihood of chicanery and
illegitimacy would defiantly increase.  I don't believe that either the
players or the owners want the public questioning (all large market vs.
small market questions aside) the legitimacy and inherent fairness of the
games played on the field.

John

- Show quoted text -

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by Mark Hanso » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:02:21


Quote:
> Knowing someone that works for the team could be very profitable.  I'm
sure
> Vegas will get their lawyers on it if that came to pass.

Very likely. And in any case, I didn't mean to suggest it's wrong if a
player's medical information becomes known; merely that it was wrong for the
team to disseminate the information as public knowledge.

Mark

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by jmac » Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:08:08

Quote:



> > So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public, all
> > information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked
> and
> > the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

> Well, a guy making millions (or not) playing baseball isn't any different
> than a guy working in a factory: he has certain reasonable expectations of
> privacy, among which (in my opinion) is that his medical history is *his*
> property, not his employers'. Granted, information on your rotator cuff
> isn't the same thing as a test indicating you're HIV-positive,

what if your rotator cuff is HIV positive?
 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by James Farra » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 04:06:06

Quote:

> Haven't found this on a wire but it's being reported as news on 980
> Sportstalk in DC.

> Apparently, there's been a ruling that under Federal law an employer cannot
> release health information about an employee without that employee's
> consent...and this applies to sports teams.

> So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public, all
> information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked and
> the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

So what they do is put a clause in every player's contract consenting to such
release of information. Simple.

--

 
 
 

Player injury reports eliminated in 2003?

Post by John Krempask » Fri, 14 Jun 2002 05:52:18


Quote:

> > Haven't found this on a wire but it's being reported as news on 980
> > Sportstalk in DC.

> > Apparently, there's been a ruling that under Federal law an employer
cannot
> > release health information about an employee without that employee's
> > consent...and this applies to sports teams.

> > So, if a player doesn't consent to the information being made public,
all
> > information about injuries that teams currently release could be blocked
and
> > the player could sue the team if ANY details of any injury is released.

> So what they do is put a clause in every player's contract consenting to
such
> release of information. Simple.

So what if the player doesn't want such a clause or demands more money if
one is put in?