Okay, I've gotten sucked in to writing about the Michael Jackson estate.  I know that this estate is atypical in so many ways.  I also believe that no amount of planning by Michael Jackson would have prevented some of what's going on.  There's simply too much money and too much family dysfunction to expect an uncomplicated estate proceeding.  But I'm sufficiently perplexed I hope someone will read this post and answer my question.

I advise clients all the time that it can be hard for a family member to access medical records when someone is sick or has died.  I know that's the experience my clients and their families have had.   The Internet has plenty of instances where families express an inability to access medical records and medical personnel express the belief that they are prohibited from providing such information except to designated persons.  USA Today even wrote this article about it.  That's why I'm very careful to include access after death when writing health care directives and HIPAA releases.

So I'm baffled as to how Joe Jackson, Michael's father, got access to any medical records at all about his son's death.  According to this article, the judge ruled that Michael Jackson didn't have a right to privacy or confidentiality after he died.  Maybe that's so, but that doesn't mean that just anyone can get access to his records.  Joe Jackson wasn't given any responsibility or property under Michael's estate plan.  California law provides that only a patient's representative can have access to medical records.  The definition of patient's representative doesn't include the parents of an adult patient and and Joe Jackson doesn't meet any of the qualifications of a beneficiary under the definition in the California Probate code.  

The only thing I can think of is that Joe Jackson has standing to sue for wrongful death and that somehow gives him standing to get these records.  Even then I'm a little perplexed how Joe has standing to sue when Michael had children.  Seems only the estate or the kids (or their guardian/conservator) would have such standing. 

Since the reports would seem to support that Michael's intent would not have been to allow his father such access, I'm disturbed by the possibility that my client's could also see their intent thwarted.  After all, according to my research and these great guides from the Center on Medical Record Rights and Privacy at Georgetown University (my alma mater), California and Colorado have similar rules about   accessing medical records after death.  So I am concerned that the records of my clients aren't as private as I think they are.

If anyone knows, please drop me a line so I can understand it -- and try to prevent similar situations for my clients.