On February 7, 2019, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the resolution agreement for its final HIPAA settlement of 2018.  The resolution agreement cited two breach notifications that OCR received from the parent of several hospitals in California.  In 2013, the provider notified OCR of a breach that occurred when one of its contractors removed electronic security protections from a server.  This breach affected more than 50,000 individuals.  In 2015, the provider submitted notice of a second breach, this one resulting from an employee’s activation of the wrong website, affecting more than 11,000 individuals. Continue Reading OCR Closes the Book on 2018 With $3 Million HIPAA Settlement

As we turn the page on 2018, let’s reflect on some of the key privacy and cybersecurity issues that will continue to occupy our hearts and minds in 2019.

Owning the Mega-Breach

2018 was the year in which data breaches in mergers and acquisitions became the iceberg in full view. This fuller realization of cyber risk in transactions, though, actually has its origin in September 2016 – when Yahoo and Marriott were in the midst of deals that would involve some of the largest data breaches on record. Continue Reading Some Thoughts on the Year in Privacy and Data Security Law

A relatively quiet year for HIPAA enforcement is ending with a small flourish.  The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced two settlements with covered entities within the span of eight days.

The first settlement involved Advanced Care Hospitalists (ACH), a company that provides internal medicine physicians to hospitals and nursing homes in Florida.  In 2014, ACH received notice from a local hospital that individually identifiable patient information had been posted on the website of a third party billing provider.  ACH reported the breach, which ultimately led to an HHS investigation. HHS found that:

  • The disclosure affected 9,225 patients.
  • ACH failed to enter into a business associate agreement with one or more vendors who had access to protected health information (PHI).
  • ACH did not implement privacy, security, or breach notification policies and procedures until after the breach was discovered.
  • ACH failed to conduct a security risk analysis until after the breach was discovered.

To settle these matters, ACH agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty and fulfill its obligations under a supervised corrective action plan that focuses on the identified failures.

The second settlement followed from a complaint lodged with HHS against Pagosa Springs Medical Center (PSMC) in Colorado.   The ensuing investigation revealed:

  • The impermissible disclosure of the PHI of at least 557 individuals to a former employee whose access to PSMC’s information systems was not revoked upon termination of employment.
  • The impermissible disclosure of the PHI of at least 557 individuals to a business associate without an appropriate business associate agreement.

Continue Reading A Pair of Year-End HIPAA Settlements

On November 21, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court drastically changed the data breach litigation landscape by holding that an employer has a common law duty to use reasonable care to safeguard employees’ personal information stored on an Internet-accessible computer. The Court further held that Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine permits recovery for “purely pecuniary damages” on a negligence claim premised on a breach of such a duty. Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Recognizes Common Law Duty to Safeguard Employees’ Personal Data

On April 18, 2018, the Government of Canada published the final regulations relating to mandatory reporting of privacy breaches under Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). To date, most organizations under PIPEDA’s purview have not been subject to mandatory privacy breach notification requirements. While organizations in the United States are familiar with breach notification statutes, organizations both within and outside of Canada will need to pay careful attention to the new requirements imposed under PIPEDA and assess any changes that need to be made to ensure compliance when the final regulations go into effect on November 1, 2018. Continue Reading Mandatory Data Breach Notification in Canada: Understanding Your New Obligations

A new bill introduced by House Financial Services subcommittee Chairman Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer would significantly change data security and breach notification standards for the financial services and insurance industries. Most notably, the proposed legislation would create a national standard for data security and breach notification and preempt all current state law on the matter. Continue Reading Proposed House Bill Would Set National Data Security Standards for Financial Services Industry

 

We’ve previously blogged about the creative efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel to expand the contours of data breach litigation.  Thus far those results have had mixed results, as courts continue to dismiss data breach litigation on Article III standing grounds – although less frequently in the case of breaches involving malicious activity. A recent ruling from the Southern District of Illinois however may have blown open a new, potentially wide front in breach litigation. Continue Reading Fiat-Chrysler Ruling May Pave the Way for Overpayment Class Actions Based on Security Flaws

Imagine a breach in the privacy of protected health information.  The violation of an individual’s HIPAA rights may be clear, but the individual cannot sue under HIPAA.  Courts have consistently held that HIPAA provides no private right of action.

In the recent case of Lee-Thomas v. Lab Corp., an individual brought suit, claiming that her HIPAA rights had been violated.  When hospitalized, she had been  asked to submit medical information on a computer.  She alleged that the information she entered was visible to another patient at a nearby computer station.  The court did not reach the question of whether the proximity of the computers resulted in a HIPAA violation.  It dismissed the claim, observing that HIPAA limits enforcement actions to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and states’ attorneys general.

The absence of a private right of action under HIPAA significantly reduces the risks faced by covered entities and business associates, but it does not shield them against all litigation and liability. Lawsuits for the improper disclosure of personal medical information have been brought under different theories, including common law breaches of privacy and breaches of contract.  Last year, Anthem Inc. settled a class action, arising from a large 2015 data breach, for $115 million. Currently, litigation is being pursued under non-HIPAA claims for disclosures that have resulted from mailing practices, including the use of window envelopes and incorrect addresses.  Case law is emerging, and it is possible that courts will refer to HIPAA’s standards as setting the bar for the privacy and data security safeguards that should be implemented and followed, but individuals who sue for breaches of those safeguards will need to base their claims on something other than a HIPAA violation. Continue Reading HIPAA Enforcement: Where’s the Action?

The Departmental Appeals Board of the Department of Health and Human Services (“Board”) has granted summary judgment against the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (“Center”) and upheld the imposition of $4.3 million dollars in penalties against the Center for violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules.  In this case, the personal medical data of more than 33,000 individuals was exposed through the theft of a laptop and the loss of unencrypted thumb drives.  None of these devices was encrypted, and the laptop was not password protected. Continue Reading Appeals Board Upholds $4.3 Million in HIPAA Penalties Against Hospital

Colorado has enacted groundbreaking privacy and cybersecurity legislation that will require covered entities to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures, dispose of documents containing confidential information properly, ensure that confidential information is protected when transferred to third parties, and notify affected individuals of data breaches in the shortest time frame in the country. The new law was spearheaded by the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which is charged with enforcing its requirements. As a result of the legislation, covered entities should consider implementing written information security programs, third party vendor management controls, and incident response plans to best position themselves against potential enforcement actions and civil litigation in the future.

Ballard Spahr attorneys David Stauss and Gregory Szewczyk will host a webinar on Monday, June 4, 2018, at noon PT/1 p.m. MT/3 p.m. ET to provide an in-depth analysis of the new law and to discuss what covered entities must do to ensure compliance. Messrs. Stauss and Szewczyk are uniquely situated to discuss the new law, having assisted in developing the legislation, including Mr. Stauss testifying on the bill in front of the House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs. Click here for more information and to register.

The most notable provisions of the new law are discussed below.

Continue Reading Colorado Enacts Groundbreaking Privacy and Cybersecurity Legislation