HIPAA Violation Does Not Mean You Can Sue
With all of the privacy concerns swirling about over patient medical records, you would think that disclosures in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) would mean millions in verdicts for people who have suffered damages. You would be wrong.
In Diering v. Regional West Medical Center, the Nebraska Federal District Court found that HIPAA does not provide a private right of action. The case involved an ER Director who informed a potential employer about the physician’s voluntary drug/alcohol treatment. After the disclosure, the physician was not hired for the job he was seeking which would have provided him with salary, benefits and partnership package in excess of $300,000 per year.
Despite the significant losses the plaintiff suffered, the Court ruled that Congress did not intend to allow people to sue for damages for HIPAA violations.
For more information on HIPAA go here.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)