A federal employee sought a work schedule accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act so that he could undergo rehabilitation treatment without using his work leave. The defendant agency was properly granted summary judgment in his lawsuit over its denial because he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before suing. He ceased participating in the investigation of his claim, citing privacy concerns, and failed to furnish sufficient information to the employer. This refusal was unjustified and he failed to show how his concern over the disclosure of medical records required him to fail to provide testimony to the investigator, or what was supposedly inadequate about the "extensive" privacy protections for medical records included in the contract the agency had with the investigator. Koch v. White, #12-5139, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4246 (D.C. Cir.).
   A pilot who contracted HIV and applied for FAA medical certificates multiple times without disclosing his HIV status or his medications pled guilty to making false statements to a government agency. The plea came after the Social Security Administration (SSA) revealed his HIV status to the Department of Transportation (DOT). He sued the DOT, FAA, and SSA, for violating his privacy rights by unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information causing him mental and emotional damages.   The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, while permitting recovery against government agencies for actual damages, does not unequivocally include damages for mental or emotional damages as within the definition of "actual damages." Therefore, the statute did not waive the sovereign immunity of the federal government for claims for mental or emotional damages arising out of violations of privacy rights. Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, #10-1024, 2012 U.S. Lexis 2539
    Section 13402 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 requires an entities covered by HIPAA to notify individuals if their "unsecured" health information has been breached.
     N.J. Supreme Court holds that an examining physician (or management) must tell an applicant (or employee) about a serious unknown condition discovered during a preservice (or post-employment) medical exam. Reed v. Bojarski, #A-63 Sept. Term 1999, 166 N.J. 89, 764 A.2d 433, 2001 N.J. Lexis 8 (N.J. 1/23/01). [2001 FP 40-1]
     HHS releases standards for protecting the privacy of medical records and health information maintained by health care providers, hospitals, insurers, and clearinghouses. HHS Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information: 45 Code of Fed. Reg. 160.101-312; www.hhs.gov [2001 FP 9]
     Employee medical records were discoverable by subpoena where the chief seeks to involuntarily retire a disabled N.Y. police officer. Burns v. N.Y. Police & Fire Ret. Sys., #82429, 1999 N.Y. App.Div. Lexis 967, 605 N.Y.S.2d 322. [1999 FP 52]
     Police officer's privacy not violated by ordinance requiring him to divulge medical information. Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534 (6th Cir. 1987).