on
Education
- Get link
- Other Apps
Based on the above, it is the strong belief that divulging confidential medical data of patients to any outside source, even by electronic means, is UNCONDITIONAL; thus, absolutely ULLEGAL. Also, the Court Reporters strongly rejected voice-recognition software. The reason cited was, that the software would open up avenues for criminals to commit crimes as voice recorders can be transformed into recording devices.
In some cases, a District Court Judge in Buffalo County has ruled that voice recognition software is not admissible as legal evidence because it does not remove the necessity for stenographic translation in legal proceedings. This ruling was in an out of court case concerning a DWI case. The videographer failed to point out the microphone's position to the Judge and the Court Reporters did not challenge the error.
A District Court in Buffalo County has ordered a law firm to pay the legal fees of a New York State Trooper who was suspended without pay while he was investigated for DWI, despite the fact that the Trooper's voice was later identified as being that of the subject of the investigation. The Court Reporters has strongly urged the Bills for More Minimum Wages to be passing to eliminate unfair labor practices in the Medical Transcription industry such as those that were found in this case. They believe that the Bill should require employers to pay the same wages as American citizens who are engaged in the same occupation. It should also require that any employer who uses voice recognition technology to record audio interviews of employees to be fingerprinted or require the employee to sign a consent form indicating they understand the nature of the recordings.
The proposed legislation has met with opposition from the American Medical Writers Association and other groups who claim that voice recognition technology is insufficient to protect the rights of medical reporters. They maintain that the current minimum wages and protections given to medical professionals are adequate to ensure that all voices are afforded equal protection under the law. Although the Court Reporters does not believe that the current minimum wages and protections provided for other professions are adequate for reporters, they do believe that the "oneray" onerous regulations governing mediato personnel are too stringent to be acceptable. They therefore believe that the Government ought to consider amending the existing statutes in order to allow employers to record voice an independent party without requiring the person to record in their own voice or granting them exclusivity to discussing the discussions.
According to the Medical Transcription Industry Association, the minimum wages set by Congress is adequate to protect all Voice of the Capitol employees from being discriminated against due to their work environment. In addition, the association argues that companies providing transcription services should be allowed to use personal equipment like a dictation device or a computer recording device to transcribe certain parts of the work. Finally, they argue that voice recognition technology ought to recognize the manner in which reporters speak, allowing the software to make reasonable inferences from these verbal responses. This would allow companies and other transcription service providers to transcribe the same information using a different format than a reporter would.
Proponents of the San Jose Court Reporters believe that the current laws provide adequate protection for medical dictations. They argue that journalists can only gain permission to release information in response to a freedom of speech lawsuit, and that the courts have held that there is a legitimate reason to protect speech in certain situations. They further argue that the act of making changes to medical dictations does not amount to an unreasonable restraint. The main problem with this argument is that it is very difficult to see how the change will have any significant effect on press freedom. This is because courts have traditionally been very reluctant to interfere with the media and are usually very skeptical of attempts to impinge on their work.
On the other side of the argument are medical transcription services and technology providers who believe that courts have the right to limit the protection offered to reporters. They argue that the changes make sense in the current environment in which they are operating. For example, they note that digital records provide better documents and can eliminate certain problems associated with paper-based records, like fraud and systematic errors. Similarly, it is argued that medical reporting software has made it much easier for doctors and other professionals to document different treatments. This helps them preserve accurate records for their patients and allow them to easily spot potential problems or inconsistencies in the treatment process.
One area where San Jose Court Reporters might actually benefit from changes in the law is in the area of medical malpractice liability. As the New York Times has previously reported, medical professionals are facing increasing challenges in defending their actions in court. Because of this, many physicians and other professionals may choose to outsource some of their work to outside sources, including reporters. Outsourcing a part of a lawsuit to a third party, is seen as a way to cut costs and reduce stress in an already hectic field. However, legal pundits say that the law will probably prevent such outsourcing in the future.
In some cases, a District Court Judge in Buffalo County has ruled that voice recognition software is not admissible as legal evidence because it does not remove the necessity for stenographic translation in legal proceedings. This ruling was in an out of court case concerning a DWI case. The videographer failed to point out the microphone's position to the Judge and the Court Reporters did not challenge the error.
A District Court in Buffalo County has ordered a law firm to pay the legal fees of a New York State Trooper who was suspended without pay while he was investigated for DWI, despite the fact that the Trooper's voice was later identified as being that of the subject of the investigation. The Court Reporters has strongly urged the Bills for More Minimum Wages to be passing to eliminate unfair labor practices in the Medical Transcription industry such as those that were found in this case. They believe that the Bill should require employers to pay the same wages as American citizens who are engaged in the same occupation. It should also require that any employer who uses voice recognition technology to record audio interviews of employees to be fingerprinted or require the employee to sign a consent form indicating they understand the nature of the recordings.
The proposed legislation has met with opposition from the American Medical Writers Association and other groups who claim that voice recognition technology is insufficient to protect the rights of medical reporters. They maintain that the current minimum wages and protections given to medical professionals are adequate to ensure that all voices are afforded equal protection under the law. Although the Court Reporters does not believe that the current minimum wages and protections provided for other professions are adequate for reporters, they do believe that the "oneray" onerous regulations governing mediato personnel are too stringent to be acceptable. They therefore believe that the Government ought to consider amending the existing statutes in order to allow employers to record voice an independent party without requiring the person to record in their own voice or granting them exclusivity to discussing the discussions.
According to the Medical Transcription Industry Association, the minimum wages set by Congress is adequate to protect all Voice of the Capitol employees from being discriminated against due to their work environment. In addition, the association argues that companies providing transcription services should be allowed to use personal equipment like a dictation device or a computer recording device to transcribe certain parts of the work. Finally, they argue that voice recognition technology ought to recognize the manner in which reporters speak, allowing the software to make reasonable inferences from these verbal responses. This would allow companies and other transcription service providers to transcribe the same information using a different format than a reporter would.
Proponents of the San Jose Court Reporters believe that the current laws provide adequate protection for medical dictations. They argue that journalists can only gain permission to release information in response to a freedom of speech lawsuit, and that the courts have held that there is a legitimate reason to protect speech in certain situations. They further argue that the act of making changes to medical dictations does not amount to an unreasonable restraint. The main problem with this argument is that it is very difficult to see how the change will have any significant effect on press freedom. This is because courts have traditionally been very reluctant to interfere with the media and are usually very skeptical of attempts to impinge on their work.
On the other side of the argument are medical transcription services and technology providers who believe that courts have the right to limit the protection offered to reporters. They argue that the changes make sense in the current environment in which they are operating. For example, they note that digital records provide better documents and can eliminate certain problems associated with paper-based records, like fraud and systematic errors. Similarly, it is argued that medical reporting software has made it much easier for doctors and other professionals to document different treatments. This helps them preserve accurate records for their patients and allow them to easily spot potential problems or inconsistencies in the treatment process.
One area where San Jose Court Reporters might actually benefit from changes in the law is in the area of medical malpractice liability. As the New York Times has previously reported, medical professionals are facing increasing challenges in defending their actions in court. Because of this, many physicians and other professionals may choose to outsource some of their work to outside sources, including reporters. Outsourcing a part of a lawsuit to a third party, is seen as a way to cut costs and reduce stress in an already hectic field. However, legal pundits say that the law will probably prevent such outsourcing in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment