MovieChat Forums > Delivery Man (2013) Discussion > **SPOILERS** a glaring legal mistake...

SPOILERS a glaring legal mistake...

posted 10 years ago by bluscreened
9 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS FOLLOW

I admit I haven't watched this movie, so I don't know all the details, my wife was watching the last 5 minutes when I showed up. So I could be wrong on this and I'm sure someone will set me straight.

If you are suing a corporation because they are violating your rights to privacy, and win, that has absolutely NO bearing on what you choose to then divulge to anyone in your personal life. The 'wrong' that the court is fixing is that the corporation had no right to divulge your information and you are entitled to your punitive damages as the result of that ruling. You can then choose to do whatever YOU want to do with YOUR information, thus he would not have to give up the money.

Now, if he had reached a settlement outside of court with the company, and a stipulation of that was that he kept his identity private, then he might have to give up the money. But that didn't happen in this movie.

Seems like a big obvious flaw in the movie's premise.

---------------------------
We've lost Gorgeous George

[–] sashimi_dragon 10 years ago

Yeah, that's what I thought. I just saw it on tv and that seemed off to me. I'm sure it was just add extra unecessary drama to his decision to come forward.

[–] mh-wicked 9 years ago

I thought that, too. What I figured was that the lawyer (whom we are reminded throughout the movie isn't much of a lawyer at all) wasn't really sure if he had to or not and assumed he did. When "Starbuck" asked him if he had to give the money back, He says "I think so, dude." (or something to that effect) and you can kinda see on his face that he really didn't know. A little research would've probably done him good but, as we are also reminded throughout the film, one of "Starbucks" major flaws is that he is WAY too trusting and takes peoples words as truth. Something you would know if you bothered to watch the whole movie before posting! LOL :p Just kidding, dude. ;)

[–] Felix-Mendelssohn 9 years ago

Something you would know if you bothered to watch the whole movie before posting! LOL :p Just kidding, dude. ;)

You you know you're not kidding.

[–] mh-wicked 9 years ago

Shhhh.... ;)

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluscreened 9 years ago

Absolutely not. Ever heard of HIPA? With HIPA, corporations have a *binding legal obligation* to protect the privacy of patients. If they are in violation of HIPA, then they can be sued and be held liable. HIPA, and by extension the courts decision on the case, has absolutely no bearing from the patient's choice to divulge any and all information he or she wishes. He would still win the case 100% hands down.

---------------------------
We've lost Gorgeous George

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bluscreened 9 years ago

Thanks for the education. Pardon my lack of "A". I don't often talk of HIPAA, let alone write about it.

All you say may be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that a company has no right to divulge a person's personal health records. Period. I never said it was a HIPAA case, but the entity is still governed by HIPAA rules, and *knows* they are not able to legally disclose any information about individuals. And under HIPAA:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html
A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm. The Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule.

So, with that in mind, I don't believe there is any judge on Earth that would ever rule in the favor of this company, regardless of the actions of the affected individual.

---------------------------
We've lost Gorgeous George

[–] rachel-filmer82 9 years ago

I think the point is, that fine is payable to the state not the victim. The victim can then pursue a civil case for damages resulting from them revealing his information - if he chooses to reveal that info himself then he cannot claim there are any damages caused by the company. They would still have to pay the fine to the government, but there would be no damages owing to the victim since he revealed the info himself. I believe this is right, it's a while since I saw it.