Medical experts...Favre's shoulder and a team's rights (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

Hey Folks,

Lots of chatter around here and in the media about the blame game in New York. Seems like the tide is turning against Favre and he's becoming a convenient scapegoat. I don't want to discuss that in this thread [there are others doing that already], but I did want to ask the fine folks on this forum to elaborate on a point of contention I have about his injury status.

I understand that with HIPAA laws these days, a person [athlete included] has broad protections when it comes to their health and the status therein. But I was surprised when the issue of Favre's health came up, GM Mike Tanenbaum and owner Woody Johnson indicated they were unable to require Favre to get an MRI or any kind of tests on his shoulder during the season.

During the Mangini firing CC, when asked why they didn't make Favre get his arm checked out a month ago versus now, Woody Johnson indicated that they didn't have the right to make Favre do so, and it was up to him.

Can anyone confirm [or discredit] that contention? Are NFL teams prohibited from ordering diagnostics like an MRI on a player under contract when their health and ability to perform physical tasks is 100% tied into their compensation? I could see not being able to make Favre have an HIV test, but as a quarterback who has to throw a ball to do his job and earn his paycheck, they have no rights to require diagnostics?

Help me out here folks, if that's the case, it seems like an unfortunate byproduct of a well intended piece of legislation.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I would say its more likely the NFLPA's CBA than HIPAA that would govern this.

 

[Serenity Now]

HIPAA has to do with privacy of medical information. I'm not sure what it would have to do with whether a team can make a player get a test. Now, what it would govern is whether Favre released the results of said test to the team.

 

[identikit]

I would say its more likely the NFLPA's CBA than HIPAA that would govern this.

HIPAA doesn't really apply to this issue.

 

[Jason Wood]

Sorry for implying that HIPAA explicitly applied here [i'm no doctor ], just was referencing that as part of the trend that came to mind. Really more interested in getting to the bottom of whether Woody Johnson was telling the truth in the presser as to why they didn't get a test on Favre's arm during the season if they were concerned with his play.

Anyone?

 

[Interseptopus]

As he's under contract, one would assume the team has the right to test their players for injuries. However, every person has the right to refuse any kind of treatment. Whether that be MRI, X-Rays, medication, surgery, etc.

My guess is that Favre refused these tests as his medical right. Perhaps he felt that he would be sidelined and did not want to go out that way. It's his right to refuse, just as it is the team's right to bench him.

Word out of NY is that the Jets had no marbles when having to call Favre out. This meant injuries, interceptions, etc. What they should have done was said, get this MRI or you are benched until you do.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I would say its more likely the NFLPA's CBA than HIPAA that would govern this.

A patient can waive HIPAA rights, and certain of those rights are waived as between the player, the team and the league (and maybe even the media, as with the weekly injury report) via the CBA.

HIPAA only relates to medical information, however, and not consent to undergo diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. I don't know where the line is drawn there, though I've always presumed that the player has some additional obligation to comply with some of the team's wishes as to medical care that the average person doesn't vis-a-vis their employer.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

Sorry for implying that HIPAA explicitly applied here [i'm no doctor ], just was referencing that as part of the trend that came to mind. Really more interested in getting to the bottom of whether Woody Johnson was telling the truth in the presser as to why they didn't get a test on Favre's arm during the season if they were concerned with his play.Anyone?

I know in a number of cases that players have refused to undergo medical treatments that the teams have thought were medically necessary or at least beneficial. Laveraneus' Coles' broken foot with the Redskins stands out in my mind in that regard. Where exactly the line is drawn between a patient's rights to refuse treatment, and a player's duty to fulfill his contractual obligations to his team I don't really know, however.

 

[Jon_Moore]

I would venture to guess they're required to sign something that requires them to release all medical information to the team, but that's just a guess.

 

[Stinger Ray]

http://www.nflplayers.com/user/template.as...id=0&type=l

 

[bcr8f]

As he's under contract, one would assume the team has the right to test their players for injuries. However, every person has the right to refuse any kind of treatment. Whether that be MRI, X-Rays, medication, surgery, etc. My guess is that Favre refused these tests as his medical right. Perhaps he felt that he would be sidelined and did not want to go out that way. It's his right to refuse, just as it is the team's right to bench him. Word out of NY is that the Jets had no marbles when having to call Favre out. This meant injuries, interceptions, etc. What they should have done was said, get this MRI or you are benched until you do.

Treatment yes, but tests to determine injuries? I wonder.