View Single Post
  #4  
Old 07-03-2018, 06:57 PM
CenTexLyn CenTexLyn is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TX-US
Posts: 14,888
Thanks: 648
Thanked 11,061 Times in 5,992 Posts
Default

1) I-60 requests would not have been the manner to address this. A SCR *IS* what should have been submitted since it is a medical issue. No change to restrictions were going to occur without medical staff looking at him. Further, if the issue was not noted at the time of the original intake interviews, then it becomes even more complicated because they have to make requests for free-world records.

2) ANY time it is discovered that an offender is gay, it implicates PREA in the current environment. A review has to be done to determine whether a move to safekeeping custody is warranted. Because of the incessant SJW whining, the agency is going to over-react when being gay was not disclosed at intake (it is specifically asked about) precisely because it creates a liability situation even in frivolous litigation.

3) Unless a HIPAA release has been executed that authorizes the release of medical information, they cannot discuss (by law) the medical restrictions

4) PARAGRAPHS...learn them, use them!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CenTexLyn For This Useful Post:
Critter07 (07-20-2018), safran (07-04-2018), Sarianna (07-04-2018), Texasflower08 (07-05-2018), yourself (07-03-2018)