Titus claim handcuffs Heck with privacy restrictions

Democratic incumbent Rep. Dina Titus found a novel way make an attack ad stick – base it on allegations the target is forbidden by law from discussing.

Titus’ newest attack against Republican challenger Joe Heck, a physician, includes accusations based on medical cases federal law prohibits Heck from talking about.

The use of restricted records – and alleged inaccuracies – leave Heck frustrated and with little recourse.

It’s the latest bitter moment in a close race for the 3rd Congressional District seat that has more than its fair share of bitterness.

“I think it is a desperate attempt by the Titus campaign to continue the tactics she used before, if she's not cursing she's lying or cheating,” Heck said Thursday after a speech to the Spring Valley Republican Women in Las Vegas, referencing Titus’ previous salty language, earlier inaccurate ad claims and her use of notes in a debate despite rules prohibiting them.

The new medical ads feature retired Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Lt. Randy Sutton accusing Heck, who reviews workers compensation claims for the department, of rejecting his claim.

“Joe Heck sat in a room full of police officers and lied directly to us,” said Sutton, who had a heart disease claim rejected. “He is a man of no integrity.”

Regina Mitchell, wife of another Las Vegas metro officer who was injured in the line of duty, makes a similar charge in the ad that Heck sided with an insurance company against her husband's claim.

The problem for Heck is that unless the accusers agree to waive their rights, privacy provisions of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, say he could be fined or sanctioned for giving his side of the story.

“The fact is I'd love to be able to talk about those cases,” said Heck, an emergency room physician who also serves as an independent contractor reviewing claims for Metro. “But I can't go into details because I would get a $50,000 fine.”

Stacey Tovino, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas law professor and expert on health law and bioethics, confirmed Heck’s interpretation that discussing the case could put him in jeopardy of violating HIPAA.

The Heck campaign did dispute a number of assertions made in the ad that had nothing to do with medical specifics. The ad says Heck “took the side of the insurance company” when reviewing the claims.

But Heck said Metro is self insured, meaning the department reviews and pays claims on its own and with taxpayer money, not through a corporate insurance company.

Heck added that he doesn’t decide whether or not a claim is accepted, he simply reviews the medical merits and makes recommendations.

“State law lays out a process by which workers compensation claims have to be reviewed, we follow the law,” he said. “If you don't provide the right documentation you can't get your claim approved.”

He also noted the Metro’s rate of approving claims is among the highest in the nation for police departments.

The Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, the union that used to represent Sutton, has endorsed Heck as well.

The Titus campaign sticks by the ad.

In an e-mail Titus spokesman Andrew Stoddard said Sutton’s story is fair game because it had been mentioned in previous columns in the Review-Journal.

“Is Heck’s claim that it was unfair for the Review-Journal to write about his direct involvement in these cases in the first place,” Stoddard wrote.

Stoddard defended the ad’s claim of Heck siding with the insurance company, despite Metro being self-insured, by citing previous instances in which Heck, as a state senator from 2004-08, cast votes Titus said put insurance companies ahead of patients.

Stoddard also criticized Heck for allegedly telling officers he would discuss their claim in detail but declining to meet with Sutton.

“This incident fits with Senator Heck’s track record of saying one thing to one group and saying something else to another,” Stoddard said.

The medical ad is among several from both campaigns that have made controversial claims.

Independent groups have also spent millions of dollars trying to influence the race from both sides, also by using exaggerated and hyperbolic claims.