[QUOTE=FishHooks;310841][B]The "in the employee of" part might still be up in the air[/B] and BMP certainly reveals medical info on TV before--Dustin's knee, Aneesa's lip, Shavon's bazookas, etc. If it were on camera, I think they are okay. IMO suing under HIPAA for someone repeating what you told them would be along the lines of suing because you are Jonathan Chiquita and the world clearly treasures you as such.[/QUOTE]
If it was, I don't think a certain case would be going to trial.
There is a difference between injuries that happen in the midst of a game and things that happen before a game begins. A person who hypothetically fails a medical test [B]before[/B] competition begins should not be disclosed on television.
Whatever happened with the Sydney cast clearly happened before the game started is behind scenes and will not be seen on television.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310841]The "in the employee of" part might still be up in the air and BMP certainly reveals medical info on TV before--Dustin's knee, Aneesa's lip, Shavon's bazookas, etc. If it were on camera, I think they are okay. IMO suing under HIPAA for someone repeating what you told them would be along the lines of suing because you are Jonathan Chiquita and the world clearly treasures you as such.[/QUOTE]
HIPAA was enacted long after I ceased trying to read every new law, but if my recollection is correct, the Justice Department would handle HIPAA criminal violation charges and the Department of Health and Human Services handles the civil cases. The AMA has a good webpage for violations for anyone already bored with their summer: [url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page]HIPAA Violations and Enforcement[/url]
As noted at the above link,
[QUOTE]While HIPAA protects the health information of individuals, it does not create a private cause of action for those aggrieved (65 FR 82566).[/QUOTE]
It goes without saying that accidents which happen during the course of a challenge may certainly seen and discussed, but medical records attendant to the accident would not be "pubic." The injured cast member is always free to discuss the matter as fully as desired on camera.
Of course, we are speaking quite generally here, and the departure (of failure to appear) of the Sydney team [SIZE="1"](in my opinion)[/SIZE] in no way relates to an injury occurring during taping.
Maybe we have a lurking practicing attorney familiar with HIPAA who can enlighten us.
[QUOTE=molds13;310844]If it was, I don't think a certain case would be going to trial.
There is a difference between injuries that happen in the midst of a game and things that happen before a game begins. A person who hypothetically fails a medical test [B]before[/B] competition begins should not be disclosed on television.
Whatever happened with the Sydney cast clearly happened before the game started is behind scenes and will not be seen on television.[/QUOTE]
If facts were needed to make a decision then that could be decided by trial testimony. IDK if it has been decided or not. From TV trial coverage, it is not unusual for there to be lots of motions trying to kick a case even while the trial is going on.
If someone were to hypothetically fail a medical test, I would think they would have never been put on the plane in the first place.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310854]
If someone were to hypothetically fail a medical test, I would think they would have never been put on the plane in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I would think so as well. If I were to blindly guess, I would guess it would be a passport or visa issue.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310854]If facts were needed to make a decision then that could be decided by trial testimony. IDK if it has been decided or not. From TV trial coverage, it is not unusual for there to be lots of motions trying to kick a case even while the trial is going on.
If someone were to hypothetically fail a medical test, I would think they would have never been put on the plane in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Molds13's comments are correct. If anyone feels like shelling out some coin (starting at @ $7.95 per document), one can read about the case. Based on my read of those document, I expect the trial to begin in the late summer. The "employee" issue appears to have been settled or there would likely have been no standing to proceed with discovery.
I hope wise heads prevail and an out-of-court settlement is reached. Negative trial attention and the apparent horrible current RW ratings don't make a healthy combination.
[QUOTE=TheFeedMachi;310855]I would think so as well. If I were to blindly guess, I would guess it would be a passport or visa issue.[/QUOTE]
A passport or visa issue would have never put the Sydney cast leaving the country.
They left the country.
[QUOTE=molds13;310860]A passport or visa issue would have never put the Sydney cast leaving the country.
They left the country.[/QUOTE]
My bad. I haven't left the country in a few years and I was unable to recall when they checked the passports and visas, but it makes sense that they would do it before travel.
HIPAA does not necessarily apply to employers it only covers health care providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacist etc.) or Health plans (health insurance companies, company health plans etc).
What it states is that these entities are not allowed to disclose your private health information. That you sought treatment and what it was for without permission. So if you are insured by a company you work for and you use that insurance to pay for health care the company is not allowed to disclose without permission what they paid for.
HIPAA would not apply in the situation of a co-worker talking on social media about something that affected your health. It could apply if you receive health care from your employer and would apply if you received health insurance from your company but only in relation to the company health plan and the treatment it paid for. If you have receive health care covered by your employer and they get a release to discuss the outcomes of your test with whatever venue they choose, it is not a HIPAA violation.
[QUOTE=notlegaladvi;310868]HIPAA does not necessarily apply to employers it only covers health care providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacist etc.) or Health plans (health insurance companies, company health plans etc).
What it states is that these entities are not allowed to disclose your private health information. That you sought treatment and what it was for without permission. So if you are insured by a company you work for and you use that insurance to pay for health care the company is not allowed to disclose without permission what they paid for.
HIPAA would not apply in the situation of a co-worker talking on social media about something that affected your health. It could apply if you receive health care from your employer and would apply if you received health insurance from your company but only in relation to the company health plan and the treatment it paid for. If you have receive health care covered by your employer and they get a release to discuss the outcomes of your test with whatever venue they choose, it is not a HIPAA violation.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to Vevmo and THANKS!
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310854]If facts were needed to make a decision then that could be decided by trial testimony. IDK if it has been decided or not. From TV trial coverage, it is not unusual for there to be lots of motions trying to kick a case even while the trial is going on.
[B]If someone were to hypothetically fail a medical test, I would think they would have never been put on the plane in the first place[/B].[/QUOTE]
I would think so too, don't they have to have everything ready before they are even allowed to leave? Sounds kind of crazy to have them all go on a plane to some country and then review their file and tell them whether or not they can stay.
I'm just going to guess someone punched a person in the face or did something "Vinny like" and they couldn't replace that cast member and it may have been easier to just ditch the Sydney cast and fly in FM. If it isn't something complicated I bet Derrick or someone will mention it on the podcast, I remember a while ago on Rivals I think, they revealed something personal about someone on the podcast but can't remember who.
[QUOTE=Blue123;310876]I would think so too, don't they have to have everything ready before they are even allowed to leave? Sounds kind of crazy to have them all go on a plane to some country and then review their file and tell them whether or not they can stay.[/QUOTE]
They do have everything ready before they leave, but as stated in their contract:
[quote]I acknowledge and agree that Producer may, at any time and in its sole and absolute discretion, add, remove or replace participants (including me) for any reason whatsoever, including if Producer determines in its sole and absolute discretion that any participant is not mentally or physically fit to continue as a participant in the Program.[/quote]
[quote]I understand that failure to comply with any such rules or instructions may result in my immediate disqualification from the Program in Producer's sole and absolute discretion.[/quote]
One should easily be able to notice that all contestants were deemed physically and mentally fit upon their departure from JFK; otherwise, they would not have been allowed on the plane.
The only physical limitations would be broken bones (which seem unlikely, as they were home before filming started) or if a contestant was high and would therefore fail the subsequent drug test that would be assessed. Hard drugs should be hard to get past TSA, but possible to sneak on.
Mentally fit? There are any number of tests one could fail to be diagnosed as mentally unhealthy. Half of the cast would probably fail those. Unless one of the four suffered a nervous or psychotic breakdown...I don't see this being an option.
Punching someone? Again, the Sydney 4 were home before filming would have started. Not really in their bag of tricks either. I can't see any of those four resorting to physical violence to make a point.
So, final verdict: we're likely looking at a physical limitation that caused production to step in and send someone home. Unable to find a replacement, the entire team was sent home and the FM team was sent in.
Is it possible that someone got really sick after they landed or something? You know like someone had an allergic reaction or caught pneumonia or something weird like that (or were sick before but didn't show symptoms right away)?
[QUOTE=V1man;310859]Molds13's comments are correct. If anyone feels like shelling out some coin (starting at @ $7.95 per document), one can read about the case. Based on my read of those document, I expect the trial to begin in the late summer. The "employee" issue appears to have been settled or there would likely have been no standing to proceed with discovery.
[B]I hope wise heads prevail and an out-of-court settlement is reached. Negative trial attention and the apparent horrible current RW ratings don't make a healthy combination[/B].[/QUOTE]
I hope it goes to trial and Tonya wins. Cancelling the show after a verdict just makes them look even more guilty if they lose. Losing may prompt Jon Murray to actually remember that he produces this show and to get off his *** to save his otherwise failing franchise that, for better or worse, be the only show his career will be judged on. If they win and cancel the show, Tonya will forever be blamed for ruining the second greatest show on earth. A settlement will never make permanent the changes that should be made to protect cast members.
[QUOTE=Nightwolf;310881]Is it possible that someone got really sick after they landed or something? You know like someone had an allergic reaction or caught pneumonia or something weird like that (or were sick before but didn't show symptoms right away)?[/QUOTE]
Anything is possible. Probable? No.
So by now they have to be in the Finals and all I gotta say is How the Hell did Brooklyn make it to the Finals? I mean I know Sarah and Chet are good proven competitors but in no way did I think they could make it this far and if it's a 4 person team challenge like I think I'm really curious how Sarah, Chet, JD, and Devyn made it this far.
[QUOTE=GiggidyGoo90;310899]So now it's the Finals Team San Diego vs Team Brooklyn.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. There is a distinct possibility that a couple of teams are missing from the official spoiler thread simply because they either just returned home or have done an exceptional job of avoiding all social networking.
So from what we know the people left are
Brooklyn cast, San Diego cast, and Trishelle with either Alton or Dustin. They may be home as well, and really avoiding any social media activities. This is interesting, and I wonder if we could even get all the details before the season begins.
[QUOTE=producer88;310926]So from what we know the people left are
Brooklyn cast, San Diego cast, and Trishelle with either Alton or Dustin. They may be home as well, and really avoiding any social media activities. This is interesting, and I wonder if we could even get all the details before the season begins.[/QUOTE]
Also the other half of Cancun (Jonna and either CJ or Derek).
Still very difficult to figure out how eliminations work. In my mind, it's highly unlikely that the teams are competing completely in pairs because I wouldn't see a point in needing exactly four castmembers for each season, so I'm thinking it's definitely each season working together against the other seasons in the challenges, then for eliminations they are split. I don't think that the eliminations partnering is set in stone throughout the whole challenge though, I feel like there are decisions to be made when it comes to that.
Obviously it'd put teams at a disadvantage losing castmembers (could also be an advantage though) but it's definitely possible, Cut Throat worked that way.
I'm bummed Jasmine was eliminated, but as long as Jonna (or CJ AND Derek) doesn't pop up next, I'll be happy. Pulling for Jonna and CJ to be the winning pair. If anybody is missing from the elimination list (which I'm not 100% convinced is true), I'm hoping it was the Brooklyn castmembers, preferably Sarah and Chet, if not all of them.
If I had to take a guess at how the finals were determined, at first I was gonna guess that they'd start the finals when they were down to 3 seasons but then I realized that that leave the possibility of a long season if, for example, a season didn't lose both pairs simultaneously. So possibly production was keeping it to six pairs like they did for Rivals.
10 eliminations, 12 finalists, 6 pairs and if pairs just so happened to be amongst a full season, they compete together. I also can't really see more than 10 eliminations, that's why I'm set on 12 finalists ala Rivals.
Sarah-JD
Devyn-Chet
vs.
Jonna-CJ/Derek
vs.
Trishelle-Alton
vs.
Sam-Zach
Ashley-Frank
...finals? Just taking some guesses, seems somewhat logical.
[QUOTE=Morris1721;310976]Still very difficult to figure out how eliminations work. In my mind, it's highly unlikely that the teams are competing completely in pairs because I wouldn't see a point in needing exactly four castmembers for each season, so I'm thinking it's definitely each season working together against the other seasons in the challenges, then for eliminations they are split. I don't think that the eliminations partnering is set in stone throughout the whole challenge though, I feel like there are decisions to be made when it comes to that....[/QUOTE]
A lot of people are in the same boat. I am sort of leaning at this point to it being opposite-sex pairs from each season where the loss of one pair in an elimination somehow greatly reduces the chances of the other pair going further either by automatically putting them in the next elimination or by forcing them to compete against a 4 person season dynamic.
I think this season will go: Challenge where the last place team automatically goes into elimination, then the next day have a life saver type challenge where if the last place team from the challenge before wins they get the chance to pick their opponents for elimination if they don't win then that day's winning team picks the other team to go into elimination, and then finally the last place team and the chosen opponents go onto elimination.
My vision: Episode 1 the Battle of the Seasons 2 format is announced, Drama between team members, whatever happened to the Sydney cast is announced, Fresh Meat cast comes in, 1st team challenge, and last place team finds out they have a chance to pick their opponents in the next challenge. End of episode 1
Call me crazy or stupid but I had alot of time on my hands to think about my crack pot theory for the 1st episode I know there's a very good chance I'm wrong about this I just had to voice my thoughts.
[QUOTE=GiggidyGoo90;310983]
Call me crazy or stupid but I had alot of time on my hands to think about my crack pot theory for the 1st episode I know there's a very good chance I'm wrong about this I just had to voice my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
LOL. I think I have gone at this from so many angles, no theory is crackpot. Only 1 will be right, but anything is fairgame for discussion IMO.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310985]LOL. I think I have gone at this from so many angles, no theory is crackpot. Only 1 will be right, but anything is fairgame for discussion IMO.[/QUOTE]
Fair game, but in this instance, incorrect. I suspect some revelations will come within a very few days.
[QUOTE=FishHooks;310985]LOL. I think I have gone at this from so many angles, no theory is crackpot. Only 1 will be right, but anything is fairgame for discussion IMO.[/QUOTE]
Correct. I certainly have an idea of how I think the challenges and eliminations work. I gave up after a while and settled on one idea as thinking of all the possibilities is nothing but maddening.
I was thinking since the entire Brooklyn cast and SD cast are there it's those two seasons. And the two mixed pairings of CJ/Derek-Jonna and Trishelle/Alton making a mix season team. So it's a three season team final. Cause didn't BMP want new victors? I don't understand why they would take the chance of having one pair win, and giving them one victor, (Alton's won previously), and have four possibly new victors.
[QUOTE=dorkyydaniel;311008]I was thinking since the entire brooklyn cast and SD cast are there it's those two seasons ,
And the two mixed pairings of CJ/Derek-Jonna and Trishelle/Alton making a mix season team. So it's a three season team final. Cause didn't BMP want new victors ? I don't understand why they would take the chance of having one pair win, and giving them one victor,(Alton's won previously), and have four possibility new victors.[/QUOTE]
Apparently it needs repeating. It is very likely that there are eliminated cast members missing from the official list. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
[QUOTE=dorkyydaniel;311008]I was thinking since the entire Brooklyn cast and SD cast are there it's those two seasons. And the two mixed pairings of CJ/Derek-Jonna and Trishelle/Alton making a mix season team. So it's a three season team final. Cause didn't BMP want new victors? I don't understand why they would take the chance of having one pair win, and giving them one victor, (Alton's won previously), and have four possibly new victors.[/QUOTE]
You would be thinking wrong.
Pages