Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to release medical records to law enforcement for investigative purposes does not preclude the use of the records in a criminal prosecution resulting from the investigation. The purpose for which medical information is released is not necessarily a limitation on the use of the information, especially when the purpose and the use are closely related. The important focus is on the concept of confidentiality. When Demaray consented to the hospital’s release of his medical records to Deputy Miller, he destroyed the confidentiality between him and his doctor by allowing the information to be communicated to a third party. See 1 McCormick on Evidence § 103, at 413 (stating patient’s disclosure of the information waives the privilege); State v. Randle, 484 N.W.2d 220, 222 (Iowa Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Even though Dema-ray retained the right to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in medical records because of statutory exception to physicianpatient privilege in homicide trials (B) holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney (C) holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment (D) holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records (E) holding victim waived physicianpatient privilege by authorizing her doctor to release her medical records to the department of criminal investigation because the information contained in her medical records was no longer confidential between herself and her physician
Output (English): holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment