Comments on: HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue

By: michelle brennan

michelle brennan — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:45:40 +0000

a receptionist in my pcp office babbled to d.c.f i was a pill seeker pill seller unruly innapropriate no boundries misquoted my records and gave factual info from file all to which is being put to the test by 5 dr. office letters disputing this is who i am mean while it went to court cant se son 7 mths till pretrial

By: Christopher

Christopher — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:56:25 +0000

The lawsuit should be for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

¶ 23 Barbuto and Sorensen’s relationship ended before Barbuto communicated ex parte with defense counsel. However, Barbuto’s tort-based duty of confidentiality continued. Further, because a duty existed, the trial court erred in dismissing Sorensen’s claim for negligence.

¶ 24 Sorensen’s invasion of privacy claim fails because Barbuto’s disclosure to defense counsel did not constitute a public disclosure, and his statements in the deposition fall under the judicial proceeding privilege. We conclude, however, that Barbuto’s actions meet the threshold to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Sorensen v. Barbuto 143 P.3d 295, 302 (Utah App.,2006)

By: Shannon

Shannon — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:03:05 +0000

What happens when your insurance company faxes your personal information, and medical information to someones house (instead of to the Dr)? My social security number, my husbands social security number, address, phone number, etc.

By: wendy

wendy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:07:02 +0000

my employer published my health problem in our communicaton book for all of nursing staff to see. if this isn’t cause for action i dont know what is. besides the dr. is nebraska whos rights were clearly violated

By: This must be changed

This must be changed — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:51:50 +0000

This is despicable and insane.

This has to be changed. Doctors will not (and do not) abide by HIPAA if there’s no threat of litigation. Thanks, Congress, for once again wasting taxpayer resources and only doing a job part way.

By: Mike Wittmann

Mike Wittmann — Thu, 24 May 2007 04:08:49 +0000

So, a hospital leaks information about a patient in a way that is against the law, and yet said patient has no recourse even though it costs him “in excess of $300,00″? That seems almost unbelievable, though not in this nation’s courts.