Multistate HIPAA Breach Settlement May Signal New Paradigm of Cyber Enforcement
The lead-up to the first multistate HIPAA-related data breach suit was a decade in the making. Lawyers say the case's success is likely to trigger similar filings.
June 10, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
In late May, 16 state attorney general offices announced the settlement of the “first-ever” multistate Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-related data breach lawsuit.
With no federal data privacy law in sight, HIPAA lawyers say the suit will likely become the norm as more state attorneys general litigate on behalf of their citizens' HIPAA rights.
The settlement comes after a December filing by Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin against health care IT provider Medical Informatics Engineering Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
The 16 AG offices alleged MIE's web-based health record program WebChart didn't safeguard data properly or disclose the 2015 breach of 3.9 million individuals' electronic protected health information in accordance to HIPAA and the states' data breach notification requirements and related laws.
MIE didn't claim an admission of liability or wrongdoing, but the health care vendor did agree to pay $900,000 to the 16 state attorneys general offices and to comply with various injunctive provisions. The provisions ranged from requiring the defendant comply with all administrative and technical safeguards and implement specifications mandated by HIPAA to having MIE document staff undergo training regarding information privacy and security policies.
Lawyers contacted by Legaltech News said that while the terms of the settlement weren't eye-catching, the composition of the suit and its success could a model to follow in future litigation.
To be sure, data breach HIPAA suits from multiple AGs were encouraged by the 2009 enactment of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, said Fox Rothschild partner Elizabeth Litten.
The HITECH Act grants state attorneys general the ability to bring civil actions on behalf of state residents for violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, enjoin further violations of it and obtain damages. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights also developed HIPAA enforcement training to assist state attorneys general with their new authority and encourages collaboration among state attorneys general, according to HHS.
While the Medical Informatics Engineering case is the first of its kind, it does provide some insight into how HIPAA data privacy enforcement will materialize in the future, Litten said.
“It's a good roadmap to see how enforcement actions will look like with these state attorneys general and the OCR,” she noted.
What's more, if more states are successful in multistate HIPAA-related data suits, it could be encouragement for companies to lobby strongly for a national data privacy law to settle the confusion borne from multiple statewide data regulations.
“It does underscore the push for having a nationwide privacy law,” said Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough partner Roy Wyman. “I think you are seeing more larger companies promoting that with a hope that it will create one enforcement mechanism and limit—in a sense—the liability, because they will be looking at federal enforcement and not the patchwork of different states and potentially 51 different plaintiffs for every breach.”
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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