 |
NCMHPC | |
|
National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals and Consumers, Inc. |
||
|
|
||
|
an educational foundation and advocacy organization serving mental health consumers and professionals |
||
|
|
NCMHPC | |
|
National Coalition of Mental Health Professionals and Consumers, Inc. |
||
|
|
||
|
an educational foundation and advocacy organization serving mental health consumers and professionals |
||
| Sent: Thursday, March 10,
2005 1:33 PM Subject: SUMMARY OF ORAL ARGUMENT IN CITIZENS FOR HEALTH from Jim Pyles Dear all, Yesterday, I argued the Citizens for Health case before the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The three-judge panel was VERY prepared and engaged. They fired questions continually at me and the government counsel from the moment we uttered our opening statements. Even though the case challenges the Amended Health Information Privacy Rule on statutory, Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional grounds, the Court seemed to be interested almost exclusively in the constitutional issues. Judge Rendell initially wondered whether we were suing the wrong party since the privacy violations were actually committed by covered entities. I pointed to numerous cases where the government was sued when they provided the authority for third parties to act. Judge Nygaard asked only one question at the end. He asked whether striking down the Amended Rule would reinstate the Original Rule. I responded that I thought it would because, if the Amended Rule is unconstitutional, then the Secretary never had the power to issue it and it would be as though the Original Rule continued in effect. He seemed to be of the view that both rules would be void if the Court struck down the Amended Rule. Judge Nygaard then instructed counsel to order an expedited transcript of the hearing and said that the Court would be issuing some questions in writing for counsel to answer. Counsel will have 10-20 days to respond to the questions from the court. At the very least, the Court appeared to believe that the issues raised were meritorious and certainly worth considering. I believe the argument went well but I cannot predict how the Court will decide. I am attaching a link to an article setting forth one reporter's observations. Thanks to everyone for your assistance and support. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/11092945.htm Jim Pyles James C. Pyles Powers, Pyles, Sutter & Verville, P.C. 1875 Eye Street, NW 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Help to support the National Coalition by purchasing logo items from
our
store
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
