Can I sue Callie Oettinger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:​

the practice of saying or implying that a person who has suffered harm or injury is responsible for it, rather than the person who caused the harm or injury

My kids are the victim of Callie. Neither they, or their parents, gave Callie permission to share their data.

Correct you gave fcps permission and fcps gave Callie permission.

Incorrect.

Callie did not have specific authorization from parents. She distributed health and private information about thousands of students and should be held accountable for her actions.

Such a disgusting thing to do to other SN families.

No she didn’t. You hear fake news and just run with it. You must be easy to fool. Guess what? I’ve got your nose!!!!

She sent unredacted files out to the Goldwater institute.

It’s a huge violation to other SN families.

Are you being difficult on purpose?

No, I’m disgusted that she would violate thousands of other SN families.

She didn’t. It’s sad you’re not being difficult on purpose. I was hoping you could control it.

Are you 12? What’s with the childish responses?

She absolutely violated the privacy of thousands of FCPS families.

Saying “absolutely” doesn’t make it true. So just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

Legalzoom has failed you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:​

the practice of saying or implying that a person who has suffered harm or injury is responsible for it, rather than the person who caused the harm or injury

My kids are the victim of Callie. Neither they, or their parents, gave Callie permission to share their data.

Correct you gave fcps permission and fcps gave Callie permission.

Incorrect.

Callie did not have specific authorization from parents. She distributed health and private information about thousands of students and should be held accountable for her actions.

Such a disgusting thing to do to other SN families.

No she didn’t. You hear fake news and just run with it. You must be easy to fool. Guess what? I’ve got your nose!!!!

She sent unredacted files out to the Goldwater institute.

It’s a huge violation to other SN families.

Are you being difficult on purpose?

No, I’m disgusted that she would violate thousands of other SN families.

She didn’t. It’s sad you’re not being difficult on purpose. I was hoping you could control it.

Are you 12? What’s with the childish responses?

She absolutely violated the privacy of thousands of FCPS families.

Saying “absolutely” doesn’t make it true. So just stop.

It is true. Absolutely. Even if you want to play obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:​

the practice of saying or implying that a person who has suffered harm or injury is responsible for it, rather than the person who caused the harm or injury

My kids are the victim of Callie. Neither they, or their parents, gave Callie permission to share their data.

Correct you gave fcps permission and fcps gave Callie permission.

Incorrect.

Callie did not have specific authorization from parents. She distributed health and private information about thousands of students and should be held accountable for her actions.

Such a disgusting thing to do to other SN families.

No she didn’t. You hear fake news and just run with it. You must be easy to fool. Guess what? I’ve got your nose!!!!

She sent unredacted files out to the Goldwater institute.

It’s a huge violation to other SN families.

Are you being difficult on purpose?

No, I’m disgusted that she would violate thousands of other SN families.

She didn’t. It’s sad you’re not being difficult on purpose. I was hoping you could control it.

Are you 12? What’s with the childish responses?

She absolutely violated the privacy of thousands of FCPS families.

Saying “absolutely” doesn’t make it true. So just stop.

It is true. Absolutely. Even if you want to play obtuse.

Then call a lawyer. See what they say. Their rejection, err, consultation is probably free. I’ll keep an eye out for your filing. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Stop saying stupid things to get people riled up. Just call a lawyer or go away. Several people have and were given outstanding legal advice. This is just dumb at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Except that is not what the law says. I'm not looking to argue this. The law clearly is not applicable, but if you think otherwise, that's fine. To be clear, however, a claim against Oettinger under this statute would be quickly thrown out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Stop saying stupid things to get people riled up. Just call a lawyer or go away. Several people have and were given outstanding legal advice. This is just dumb at this point.

Why are you trying to silence parents who are rightfully furious that Callie violated our privacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Except that is not what the law says. I'm not looking to argue this. The law clearly is not applicable, but if you think otherwise, that's fine. To be clear, however, a claim against Oettinger under this statute would be quickly thrown out.

She did not have “specific authorization” from the students’ guardians to redisclose medical records for THOUSANDS of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Stop saying stupid things to get people riled up. Just call a lawyer or go away. Several people have and were given outstanding legal advice. This is just dumb at this point.

Why are you trying to silence parents who are rightfully furious that Callie violated our privacy?

Because it’s disinformation that’s leading parents to think they have a legal standing. It’s dangerous to our democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Callie did not have specific authorization for redisclosure of health records.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title32.1/chapter5/section32.1-127.1:03/#:~:text=No%20person%20to%20whom%20health,specific%20authorization%20to%20such%20redisclosure.
No person to whom health records are disclosed shall redisclose or otherwise reveal the health records of an individual, beyond the purpose for which such disclosure was made, without first obtaining the individual's specific authorization to such redisclosure.

Two points here:

1. That law does not apply to private individuals. It applies to health care providers and those in privity with them. It would violate the First Amendment (as a prior restraint) if applied to the population generally.

2. Even if it did apply to private individuals, the law states (at subsection (C)(2)) that it does not apply to "the health records of minors."

No, this section addresses individuals.

And the exception for minors is that the parents or guardians need to give specific authorization, not the minors.

Stop saying stupid things to get people riled up. Just call a lawyer or go away. Several people have and were given outstanding legal advice. This is just dumb at this point.

Why are you trying to silence parents who are rightfully furious that Callie violated our privacy?

Because it’s disinformation that’s leading parents to think they have a legal standing. It’s dangerous to our democracy.

What is your VA bar ID #?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


She doesn't need permission. Once FCPS mistakenly gave her the documents, she was free to do whatever she wanted with them. She has no legal obligation to protect or not disclose anything. We can argue about morals and ethics all day (or for the 61 pages of this thread) but the law is clear.


“Thank God there’s at least one other person on this thread with at least a shred of intelligence and common sense. My faith in NoVa parents is restored.“

What a load of crap. Let’s see how that stands up in court when she gets her ass sued. So if the bank deposits money in my account I can do whatever I like with it? It’s there mistake not mine. You are a piece of work. Bless your heart

It’s already stood up in court. FCPS sued her and lost before. Then they did it again! Catch up, people!

FCPS can’t claim emotional harm.

[Anonymous]

FOIA exemption 6 states that " Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy" is excluded from FOIA. Does this exclusion apply to the FOIA reviewer as well? Unfortunately, personal information that could be used to harm my child was shared with an individual on Oct. 19 2023 "during an in-person review of information related to the reviewer's own child." The reviewing parent's intent was to gain access to information related to their own child. While reviewing records, the reviewing parent saw information about my child and others and went a step further, going outside the purview of their original FOIA request to gather information about their own child. They took other children's data, and saved an "electronic copy" with private data about individual children.
They redacted names, and published information redacted information on "an individual's personal privacy" on the internet. How is this not in direct violation with privacy laws? Doesn't a person issuing a FOIA request have responsibility to maintain within the bounds of that request? I did not consent to this data being released, nor did my child ascent. How do I know that this information will not be used by the "reviewing" parent to blackmail my child in the future? I understand that FCPS made a big mistake, which they have acknowledged. However, this "reviewing parent" went beyond their FOIA request and shared private information with whom??? The internet? Why? Who did the redacting, who has the original document the reviewing parent shared? Where is this private information now? Doesn't this reviewing parent who now has sensitive data have responsibilities to be a data steward? Why would someone take my child's data? To blackmail my child or others? To hurt FCPS in some sick way? I sure hope there is a class action suit against this person. It's not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FOIA exemption 6 states that " Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy" is excluded from FOIA. Does this exclusion apply to the FOIA reviewer as well? Unfortunately, personal information that could be used to harm my child was shared with an individual on Oct. 19 2023 "during an in-person review of information related to the reviewer's own child." The reviewing parent's intent was to gain access to information related to their own child. While reviewing records, the reviewing parent saw information about my child and others and went a step further, going outside the purview of their original FOIA request to gather information about their own child. They took other children's data, and saved an "electronic copy" with private data about individual children.
They redacted names, and published information redacted information on "an individual's personal privacy" on the internet. How is this not in direct violation with privacy laws? Doesn't a person issuing a FOIA request have responsibility to maintain within the bounds of that request? I did not consent to this data being released, nor did my child ascent. How do I know that this information will not be used by the "reviewing" parent to blackmail my child in the future? I understand that FCPS made a big mistake, which they have acknowledged. However, this "reviewing parent" went beyond their FOIA request and shared private information with whom??? The internet? Why? Who did the redacting, who has the original document the reviewing parent shared? Where is this private information now? Doesn't this reviewing parent who now has sensitive data have responsibilities to be a data steward? Why would someone take my child's data? To blackmail my child or others? To hurt FCPS in some sick way? I sure hope there is a class action suit against this person. It's not right.

No, it does not apply to someone who receives information in response to a FOIA request. A public entity (like FCPS) may withhold information based on the exemption. But once FCPS discloses the information (intentionally or inadvertently) the recipent is free to use the information that was disclosed. (And, to clarify an inaccuracy above, Oettinger did not "take" any information. It was given to her -- mistakenly -- by FCPS in response to her request.)

[Anonymous]

I am not a lawyer - just a mom who loves their child. I hope there is a point of law that is not being considered in your response, because parents should not be able to deliberately hurt other parents and children like this. Why would this parent want information about other children? The parent had the choice to obtain information about their child only, and inform FCPS of the breach. Instead, the parent chose to save an electronic copy with sensitive data about other children. Then the parent redacted names and published a list. The lack of transparency about how the data is being stored and monitored leaves children and their families vulnerable and insecure. Had they reported the problem to FCPS and kept the data with FCPS, we would not have this problem. I don't know the law - but I do know ethics. This is flat out unethical. I feel betrayed by a fellow special needs parent. Life is hard enough, and I trust my special needs parent friends. We abide by ethical standards when we share private information, cry, celebrate, all in the safety of trust and silence. This parent does not have the same ethical standards. We need legal protection from parents like this person.