Bankruptcy Not an Escape From Federal Healthcare Privacy Watchdogs
Patient privacy and medical data protection are hot-button issues in the healthcare industry. Though the Bankruptcy Code contains provisions that address privacy protection for individuals, the Bankruptcy Code does not contain an operative provision detailing a process for the protection of healthcare data. Lack of such a provision, however, has not precluded the federal government from independently stepping in to protect patient data.
March 31, 2014 at 05:54 PM
5 minute read
Patient privacy and medical data protection are hot-button issues in the healthcare industry. Though the Bankruptcy Code contains provisions that address privacy protection for individuals, the Bankruptcy Code does not contain an operative provision detailing a process for the protection of healthcare data.
Lack of such a provision, however, has not precluded the federal government from independently stepping in to protect patient data. This article discusses (i) a recent case in which the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) intervened in a bankruptcy proceeding to enforce healthcare privacy law; (ii) a recent case in which the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) commenced an action to ensure patients' privacy was protected with respect to a healthcare business; and (iii) the key takeaways of the recent actions.
The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)
HIPAA is the main federal law covering protection of patient healthcare information. Pursuant to HIPAA, patients may access and restrict access to healthcare data held by healthcare providers, health plans, healthcare clearinghouses, and health insurers (collectively, the “Covered Entities”) and “business associates” who have contracted with the Covered Entities.
Because there is not a private right of action under HIPAA, only the federal government may enforce the provisions of HIPAA. Further, although HHS is specifically tasked with enforcing HIPAA, as discussed below, the FTC has also recently sought, under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the “FTC Act”), to protect consumers with respect to health information privacy.
HHS Intervenes in the Laboratory Partners, Inc. Bankruptcy
Recently, in the bankruptcy case of In re Laboratory Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-12769-PJW (Bankr. D. Del. 2013), the debtors sought to sell substantially all of the assets of the debtors' laboratory testing services businesses, including customer lists. In light of the fact that a number of the debtors in the case are covered entities under HIPAA, on December 18, 2013, HHS objected to the proposed sale on the grounds that HIPAA requires Covered Entities to obtain customer authorization to sell protected health information.
HHS's action in the case indicates it is aggressively monitoring bankruptcy proceedings to ensure privacy of patients' protected health information.
FTC's Recent Healthcare Privacy Enforcement Action Against LabMD
The FTC Act provides the FTC with authority to enforce, among other things, unfair and deceptive practices or acts and seek appropriate relief for “conduct injurious to consumers.”[1] The FTC seeks to protect consumers from practices in the marketplace that may lead to unlawful or unauthorized access and use of the consumers' personal information, including health information. Recently, the FTC commenced an action against LabMD, Inc., a medical testing laboratory. In the action, the FTC alleged LabMD violated the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to prevent unauthorized access to personal information and health information.
On November 12, 2013, LabMD sought to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that it was “Congress's intent to give HHS regulatory authority over patient-information data-security and to displace whatever Section 5 authority the FTC might have to regulate LabMD's data-security practices as unfair acts or practices.”[2] On January 16, 2014, the FTC denied the motion to dismiss noting that it has broad enforcement powers under the FTC Act which allows it to police even HIPAA-regulated entities.
Although the FTC's LabMD enforcement action is outside of bankruptcy, the FTC in the past has aggressively intervened in bankruptcy court to enforce privacy protections. For instance, the FTC intervened in the bankruptcy case of Toysmart.com, LLC (Toysmart). In that case, Toysmart requested authority to sell its assets, which included customers' personally identifiable information (“PII”). Toysmart's privacy policy provided that personal information submitted by visitors to its website would not be shared with third parties.
The FTC filed a complaint against Toysmart in federal district court asserting that the sale of the PII constituted a deceptive practice because the sale contradicted Toysmart's privacy policy. The FTC sought a permanent injunction prohibiting Toysmart from selling the PII.
Toysmart and the FTC ultimately settled the matter. The Toysmart case was an impetus to Congress's later addition of consumer privacy protection provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.
Key Takeaways
The key takeaways from the recent government actions are (i) the federal government is closely monitoring bankruptcy cases and, if necessary, will aggressively step in to address healthcare privacy concerns; and (ii) it is not clear whether the FTC will defer to the HHS and allow it to proceed solely in bankruptcy proceedings to address healthcare privacy protections under HIPAA or the FTC will independently step in to enforce privacy under the FTC Act. One thing is clear, however, that is, two major federal watchdogs are ready, willing and able to protect patients' privacy in bankruptcy proceedings.
Disclaimer. This article represents the views of the author and such views should not necessarily be imputed to Norton Rose Fulbright, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, or their respective affiliates and clients. This publication should not be considered legal advice and receipt of this publication does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
About the Author. Ms. Simmons focuses her practice on the representation of debtors, creditors and other parties in complex restructuring, finance, bankruptcy and litigation matters. She can be reached at [email protected].
[1] See 15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58; FTC, Legal Resources – Statutes Relating to Both Missions, http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/stat1.shtm (last visited March 31, 2014).
[2] See Motion to Dismiss, available at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/131112respondlabmdmodiscomplaintdatyadminproceed.pdf
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readAttorneys Go to DC Federal Court Seeking Damages for Plaintiffs in Oct. 7, 2023, Attack on Israel
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250