A burgeoning issue in no-fault insurance litigation has been the applicability of HIPAA and the Privacy Rule to actions brought for recovery of monies for services rendered pursuant to no-fault insurance policies. In particular, issue has been raised whether a medical provider who has treated an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident must comply with HIPAA and the Privacy Rule in order to sustain its action. The issue typically arises in two scenarios: The court sua sponte demands that the medical provider, to proceed, produce a “HIPAA authorization”; or the court sua sponte demands that the medical provider prove the patient was given notice of his/her HIPAA rights.
This article serves as an examination of HIPAA and the Privacy Rule as it relates to no-fault litigation. Specific attention is paid to how to identify who is a “covered entity” under HIPAA, and examined are the permissive uses of protected health information even where a party is a “covered entity.”
Background and Provisions
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
