Austin v. Moreland

The trial court erred in finding that HIPAA precluded any ex parte communications with the prior treating physicians, regardless of whether such communications included the disclosure of protected health information in violation of the HIPAA privacy rule.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

These appeals arise out of a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Amanda Moreland against Dr. Michael Austin and his employers collectively, “Dr. Austin” following the death of Mrs. Moreland’s husband at Coliseum Medical Center in Macon. Mrs. Moreland’s complaint sought, among other things, an interlocutory injunction enjoining Dr. Austin from “inducing any healthcare provider to divulge protected health information concerning Mr. Moreland” except in compliance with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 “HIPAA”. The trial court granted such request for injunctive relief in part, holding that Dr. Austin could interview Mr. Moreland’s prior treating physicians, but only after giving reasonable notice to Moreland so that her attorneys could be present during those discussions. In Case No. A07A1206, Dr. Austin appeals the partial grant of Mrs. Moreland’s request for injunctive relief, claiming i that such relief was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and ii that all of the protected health information possessed by the prior treating physicians had previously been disclosed in compliance with HIPAA. In Case No. A07A1207, Mrs. Moreland cross-appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in failing to sanction Dr. Austin for conducting ex parte communications with her late husband’s prior treating physicians. As discussed below, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that HIPAA prohibited Dr. Austin from conducting ex parte communications with Mr. Moreland’s prior treating physicians because such meetings do not necessitate the disclosure of health information protected by the HIPAA privacy rule.

Equitable relief, such as the partial grant of a request for an interlocutory injunction, “is generally a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the action of the trial court should be sustained on review where such discretion has not been abused. Cit.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 274 Ga. 498, 510 5 556 SE2d 114 2001.

Austin v. Moreland

The trial court erred in finding that HIPAA precluded any ex parte communications with the prior treating physicians, regardless of whether such communications included the disclosure of protected health information in violation of the HIPAA privacy rule.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report