What do I have to tell the PI?

October 11, 2006 7:54 PM

I’ve been approached by a private investigator, who is asking questions of me in support of a medical lawsuit against my former employer.

Three years ago, I worked as a social worker in a healthcare establishment. The allegations appear to be that the administration did not properly care for a few individuals, which contributed to the development of medical problems for these individuals. The PI has asked me if I know these individuals (per HIPAA, I cannot confirm that these individuals have been in the healthcare facility), whether these medical problems were discussed with me, and whether or not the administration hired enough people to care for the patients.

I don’t want to answer any of these questions, and I won’t discuss specific patients, and I know very little of the medical history of these patients. I don’t have to answer any of these questions unless I’m subpoenaed, right? I live in Tennessee.

I don’t want to be subpoenaed. Should I try to answer a few questions to convince the PI that I really don’t know anything and I’m not worth being subpoenaed for?

I also don’t want to answer questions about staffing and quality of care. I know that I can talk to my former employers and they will submit me to days of query, isolation, and practice with their lawyers, but I would rather avoid that as well.

I can’t answer specific questions about patients, so I don’t have to worry about that. I don’t know about their medical history, so I don’t have to worry about that. I don’t want to be subpoenaed, but I can live with that if it happens. But I really am uncertain about how to deal with staffing and qualify of care questions. We were all constantly busy and overworked. That’s the nature of the medical field. I don’t want to try to answer that. There’s answering honestly, and answering honestly and stupidly. I’m afraid that without extensive coaching, I would be doing the latter. I’m not afraid for myself, because I had so little to deal with medical matters, but I’m not sure if I want to provide stupid answers that could contribute to my former employer losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Thanks so much for your advice.

posted by anonymous to law & government (18 comments total)

I don’t want to answer any of these questions, and I won’t discuss specific patients, and I know very little of the medical history of these patients. I don’t have to answer any of these questions unless I’m subpoenaed, right? I live in Tennessee.

I don’t want to be subpoenaed. Should I try to answer a few questions to convince the PI that I really don’t know anything and I’m not worth being subpoenaed for?

He is a private individual, with no authority over you. You don't owe him shit.

He has about as much of a claim on your time as a Jehovah's Witness or a crackhead accosting you on the street.
posted by jason's_planet at 8:05 PM on October 11, 2006

If you don't want to talk to him, then don't. You absolutely don't have to answer any questions put to you by a PI, unless you want to.

If they subpoena you, then the subpoena you. There's really nothing you can do about that. Talking to their investigator is just going to spark their interest and make a subpoena more likely.
posted by bshort at 8:09 PM on October 11, 2006

Just tell him you don't know anything. It might help to add that he's creeping you out and you want him to leave you alone. Use the word 'harassment' if he keeps it up. The more you talk the more he's going to pester you and the more likely they'll want to get you on the record with a subpoena. You don't have to say anything to him. He might act like he's got some kind of authority to ask questions, but he doesn't.
posted by jaysus chris at 8:11 PM on October 11, 2006

IANAL. Of course you don't have to answer the PI's questions, but an outright refusal might lead the plaintiffs to believe they have to depose you in order to learn what you know. If your primary objective is to minimize your involvement and inconvenience, then you should probably answer a few questions, politely and truthfully, but with a great deal of "aw shucks" vagueness. If your primary objective is to protect your former employer, you should probably contact them and meet with their counsel (who will probably advise you not to speak to anyone until a deposition). I think you have to choose which is objective is more important to you, and act accordingly.
posted by Urban Hermit at 8:16 PM on October 11, 2006

which is objective is more important to you
posted by Urban Hermit at 8:18 PM on October 11, 2006

If you really want to put off the P.I., let him know that you a) have a terrible memory, and b) have no documents left from your time working for the organization.

Urban Hermit has it right, vagueness is key. Answer his questions with the phrase "I don't really remember." That will drive home the point that a subpoena is going to be useless.
posted by tkolar at 8:38 PM on October 11, 2006

I know from experience you can get subpoenaed to fill in some odd little detail or angle of a lawyer's case - there's not much point second-guessing what specific information is likely to help you avoid it. I think your best bet is giving no specific information and only general information that is contrary to what they're looking for.

I'd respond that you could not give any specific information on patient care even if you had it because of HIPAA, that your work was unrelated to the types of issues they are asking about, that you perceived no problems with the standards of care you observed (even if you're stretching the point in these last two, who cares) and that you have no interest in discussing the issue further with them.
posted by nanojath at 8:38 PM on October 11, 2006

In the event that you're subpoena'd, probably to a deposition, you might contact your former employer's Risk Management or Legal department. They might be willing to supply you with a lawyer to accompany you to the deposition (if any) so that your rights could be protected.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:05 PM on October 11, 2006

I don't think he'll subpoena you, given that you'd be a horrible witness. You don't know anything, you stammer a lot, you contradict yourself repeatedly, you use esoteric appellations for things (and get them wrong), and you keep hitting him up for a loan so you can score some primo weed. None the less, it's worth asking him whether the judge will be able to get your criminal record erased if you testify. Make sure he knows that you can be sober if you have to be.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:26 PM on October 11, 2006 [11 favorites has favorites]

Say nothing. Even if you wanted to talk, you have legal obligations to uphold. For all you know, this PI is actually gathering evidence for a HIPAA violations claim and you're just the sucker he needs to say the wrong thing. Or considering the HP scandal, he could even be working for your a former (or current?) employer, testing your commitment to uphold a confidentiality agreement or somesuch.

There's no benefit for you in answering his questions, no obligation to do so, and clear obligation not to. Easy decision.
posted by nakedcodemonkey at 10:57 PM on October 11, 2006

Of course everyone urging you to be vague has it right. I did want to just remind you that the subpoena thing is a crapshoot. For instance, even though you can't talk with the PI about the patients now, you certainly could if you were subpoenaed, as they could simply sign a release to waive their rights. So you absolutely should not discuss them now but also make your other answers so vague that the PI reasonably knows that you're unlikely to be at all helpful.
posted by OmieWise at 5:51 AM on October 12, 2006

I would hold out for the subpoena, because a lawyer in a deposition is going to be obliged to abide by HIPAA. Also, you could ask your former employer to provide you with a lawyer of your own.
posted by Lyn Never at 5:53 AM on October 12, 2006

IANAL, but I have been deposed as a witness in a malpractice case. I agree with all of those who say to say little or nothing to the PI, but don't go as far as to be dishonest; if by chance they do end up subpoenaing you any changes in your story could come back to haunt you. It sounds like you are on good terms with your former employer (at least you sound like you don't bear them any ill will), so I would consider letting their legal department or risk management team know you have been approached. As others have said, nothing may come of it, especially if you don't seem to be a helpful witness, but if you are deposed it will be easier if you are prepared beforehand. Also, if you are deposed, unless you are an integral part of the case, you can expect a short (30 minute to an hour) meeting with the defense attorney ahead of time, then the deposition itself might be less than an hour. The deposition itself can be pretty entertaining, with uptight suit and tie wearing lawyers rolling their eyes at each other and often acting like bratty kids to each other.
posted by TedW at 6:32 AM on October 12, 2006

And to address your last point, the adequacy of staffing at your former employer is a matter of opinion. Unless you have some expertise in medical staffing, all you have to tell anyone, even in a deposition, is that you are not an expert in staffing issues and cannot offer an informed opinion. If staffing is a major issue in the case, you can rest assured there will be well-paid experts flown in from out of town to address it.
posted by TedW at 6:38 AM on October 12, 2006

TedW wrote...
The deposition itself can be pretty entertaining, with uptight suit and tie wearing lawyers rolling their eyes at each other and often acting like bratty kids to each other.

I'll second that. I got deposed a few years ago, and it's hard to find cheaper or more entertaining performance art.
posted by tkolar at 8:35 AM on October 12, 2006

If you just want to not be involved, you should try telling the PI nicely that you really don't remember anything and don't think you could help them. If the PI gets the sense that it isn't worth the time to follow up with you, then they will lose interest and drop you. If you just refuse to talk to the PI, he might go away also, or he could think that you have something good to say for his client and you're just afraid to say it.

On the other hand, if you think the plainitff is going to subpoena you anyway, you may as well contact your former employer and tell them about the PI's contacts. Your former employer will almost certainly hook you up with their lawyers and pay for your representation. The lawyers will prevent the PI or the plaintiff from calling you anymore -- everything will have to be through the lawyers. This route as the downside of getting you more involved in the litigation.
posted by Mid at 12:16 PM on October 12, 2006

I don’t want to be subpoenaed. Should I try to answer a few questions to convince the PI that I really don’t know anything and I’m not worth being subpoenaed for?

If you just refuse to talk to the PI, he might go away also, or he could think that you have something good to say for his client and you're just afraid to say it.

While I am not a PI, I would be far more likely to think someone is trying to hide something from me if they go through all this elaborate shuck&jive about a bad memory than if they said "I'm not interested in spending my time answering your questions, goodbye." Further, if they are any good and spend much time interviewing people you can be sure they're experienced in (a) helping people remember things and (b) detecting inconsistencies.

If you're uncomfortable giving someone a blanket refusal (which is a human foible investigators are happy to exploit - people want to help someone when asked) then just tell them that given all the legal restrictions on what you can and cannot disclose because of privacy laws you're just not going to endanger yourself by answering any questions unless compelled to by law, thank you byebye.

You are not going to convince them you're worth deposing by refusing to talk to the PI. If they have anything approaching a case they're going to be able to get the records of who worked where and with what and they're going to know who they will definitely subpoena. If you're on that list you're gonna get subpoenaed anyway (or at least they'll try to get one issued for you) and they're just taking this pass at asking you questions that any council you retained would never allow in a deposition. If they're interviewing people beyond that list it's just a fishing expedition to see if anyone says anything interesting or leads them to other people.

If you don't wanna talk, don't talk.
posted by phearlez at 2:36 PM on October 12, 2006

all good advice, but why hasn't anybody suggested that you might be able to remember something if only he could find your friends Ben or Grant so you could have them jog your recollection
posted by qbxk at 4:13 PM on October 12, 2006