Here’s a court decision from the US (again) that deals with a privacy claim in a medical records situation. The lawsuit was against the clinic, city and county.<\/p>\n
This case really brings home that a party receiving a “legal requirement” to disclose private information has a a duty to ensure that the “legal requirement”\u00a0is actually binding on them. If not, they are liable for the privacy infringement, as was the case here.<\/p>\n
What I like about this case is it demonstrates a few principles of law, although not explicit in the case decision, including that a federal law does not govern over the privacy rights of an individual. (It also reads like a soap opera or tv movie script with all the intrigue and multiple story lines).<\/p>\n
In this case a grand jury issued\u00a0subpoena “ordered” a medical clinic to hand over patient records, so they did.<\/p>\n
The individual sued for breach of privacy and won…or in this case settled out of court when the court had determined he actually had a solid claim, even though a federal law “appeared” to mandate that the clinic “was compelled” to provide the records.<\/p>\n
This goes to the heart of a few legal principles:<\/p>\n
I like this case as evidence of the law being there to protect us, if we use it.<\/p>\n
Bold emphasis mine below<\/p>\n
Rejecting a defense based on compliance with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (\u201cHIPAA\u201d), a federal court in Ohio denied a medical clinic\u2019s motion to dismiss invasion of privacy claims following the clinic\u2019s disclosure of medical records to a grand jury.\u00a0 In Turk_v_Oiler<\/em><\/a> No. 09-CV-381 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2010), plaintiff Turk had been under investigation for illegally carrying a concealed weapon and for having a weapon while under disability in violation of an Ohio law which provides that \u201cno person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm\u201d if \u201c[t]he person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.\u201d\u00a0 Defendant Cleveland Clinic, where Turk was a patient, received a grand jury subpoena requesting \u201cmedical records to include but not be limited to drug and alcohol counseling and mental issues regarding James G. Turk.\u201d\u00a0 When the Cleveland Clinic disclosed Turk\u2019s medical records in response to this subpoena, Turk sued the clinic for violating his privacy rights.<\/p>\n
It its defense, the clinic argued that a specific exemption in HIPAA permits such disclosure of medical records in response to a grand jury subpoena<\/strong>.\u00a0 Ohio\u2019s physician-patient privilege, however, provides that a physician cannot testify as to \u201ca communication made to the physician . . . by a patient in that relation or the physician\u2019s . . . advice to a patient.\u201d\u00a0 The court found that the term \u201ccommunication,\u201d as used in the statute, includes hospital records \u201cand is sufficiently broad to cover any confidential information gathered or recorded within them during the treatment of a patient at the hospital.\u201d\u00a0 Because the HIPAA provision exempting the disclosure would not preempt this more restrictive state law, the court denied the clinic\u2019s motion and refused to dismiss Turk\u2019s privacy claim<\/strong>.\u00a0 That decision may have prompted a settlement, as this week, the court granted a request by Turk to dismiss all of his claims against the clinic.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n