Stakeholder #2

My second stakeholder is Texas Health Resources. They're the other half to Nina Pham's lawsuit, so their side is worth presenting.

• Texas Health Resources (THR) is a nonprofit that supervises 24 different hospitals in the northern Texas area. People in this area of Texas anytime they encounter one of their many hospitals, and they are incredibly easy to find online. THR's website is clear and organized. There are several links to set up appointments, pay bills and find information on services, locations, jobs, etc. Their website appears to be very patient-centered and accessible, focusing on patient needs and community.

• THR's claims: 
• 1) "THR has said that it followed proper procedures and had Pham's permission for the information it released." 
• 2) "It is deeply concerning that this infection occurred... We don't know what occurred... but at some point there was a breach in protocol and that breach in protocol resulted in infection," Tom Frieden, head of THR.
• 3) "THR argued Monday that the civil court does not have jurisdiction because Pham's claim should be decided by a worker's compensation claim. THR said it Pham's co-employer." 

How valid are THR's claims?

• THR's first claim is that they had permission to release Nina's name and the video they took of her in the hospital room, according to HIPAA Privacy regulations. This is a difficult claim to support, because it's basically their word against hers. Before I mentioned that it was clear that Nina's privacy had been breached, but in all honesty, she didn't have much evidence except her own claim. This claim could go either way for both stakeholders.

Compliance and Safety LLC. "Hipaa Violations by Type." 8/12/2014 via WikiMedia Commons. Creative Commons License. 

• THR's second claim is their least valid. Nina and the nurses she worked with all claimed that they were not even trained for a certain protocol, and they received virtually no guidance. Yes, protocol was breached, but to say that they don't know what occurred is just a lie. 
• THR's third claim is really where the trial ends. Pham and her attorneys claim that she was employed by Texas Health Presbyterian- which works in her favor to win the case- but THR claims that they employ her- which simply ends in worker compensation. The judge ended up deciding to go with worker compensation (boo) but it is still unclear who her employer is officially. Judge Martin Hoffman is still deciding on this topic, but no more news has been reported since then. This seems to be the end of the road for Nina and her case. 

How are these claims similar/different to other stakeholders?

• THR's first claim is basically the exact opposite of Nina's, plain and simple.
• THR's second claim is exactly the opposite of what Nina and the nurses she worked with are trying to prove; that they were not prepared to handle Ebola. THR claims they were, but the evidence points to the opposite.
• THR's third claim, is again, the opposite of what Nina hopes to prove. This claim is more driven by minute details, rather than the facts of the case. Nina works for Texas Health Presbyterian, which is technically supervised by the THR. By the looks of it, it does seem like THR is her employer, so I can see how THR would use this as a loophole to end the case.

Now that I've presented the two major stakeholders, did your opinion of Nina change? While I can still put my two cents in, I feel that Nina's claims are backed with a lot more evidence.