Suits Say Aetna Mass Mailing Violated Recipients' HIV Privacy
Medical insurance company Aetna Inc. faces a growing legal predicament over claims that it violated the privacy of patients taking medications…
October 26, 2017 at 05:51 PM
8 minute read
|
Medical insurance company Aetna Inc. faces a growing legal predicament over claims that it violated the privacy of patients taking medications for HIV. The company was hit with a suit in Superior Court in Essex County on Oct. 20 in connection with a mass mailing that allegedly violated the privacy of recipients.
The New Jersey suit follows three potential class actions over the same mailings that have been filed against Aetna in federal courts around the country—on Oct. 12 in Hartford, on Sept. 25 in San Diego, and on Aug. 28 in Philadelphia. But the New Jersey case, filed on behalf of two unnamed plaintiffs, is not a class action.
The suits concern letters sent by Aetna to 12,000 insureds in envelopes with large glassine windows, revealing the recipient's name and address and indicating that the mailing concerned the recipient's HIV medications.
The company's dilemma is made worse by the fact that the letters in question were sent out as part of the settlement of prior lawsuits claiming the company breached the privacy of patients using HIV medications.
In 2014 and 2015, Aetna was sued in two other potential class actions, Doe v. Aetna in the Southern District of California and Doe v. Coventry Health Care in the Southern District of Florida. In both cases, Aetna was accused of violating the rights of people who take HIV medication by requiring them to have their drugs delivered to their homes, instead of picking them up at a pharmacy. The cases were settled on an individual basis and class status was not certified in either case. The letters that are the subject of the latest litigation were sent to Aetna insureds around July 28 to announce terms of the settlement.
The New Jersey suit is brought under the state AIDS Assistance Act, which requires health care providers to protect the privacy of people with HIV and AIDS. The act also creates a private cause of action for individuals who are subject to violation under the act, and allows courts to award punitive damages for “wantonly reckless conduct” by the party that commits the violation.
“Despite the fact that the first AIDS case was identified 40 years ago, people living with HIV and AIDS still face extreme stigma,” the suit claims.
The plaintiffs in the New Jersey case say that when they received the letters, they were not deposited in their mailbox but were left on their front porch. The plaintiffs said the letters were deposited on their porch after they were apparently delivered in error to one of their neighbors. The letters were discovered by the mother of one of the plaintiffs, who was not aware until then that the plaintiffs were taking HIV medication, the suit said. The discovery “has caused terrible problems and difficulty in the plaintiffs' household,” the suit claims.
The mailings placed one of the plaintiffs in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to family members that he was living with HIV. The other plaintiff was forced to explain that he was not living with HIV but was taking the medication as part of a regimen of pre-exposure prophylaxis, the suit said.
“These questions led to further embarrassing and invasive discussions on why plaintiffs need to protect themselves, which activities put themselves at risk and other topics of an intimate nature. These conversations have changed the nature of the plaintiffs' family relationship to one another and within their household,” the suit said.
Lani Dornfeld, Edward Capozzi and Dennis Shlionsky of Brach Eichler in Roseland represent the plaintiffs in the New Jersey case.
“It's kind of crazy—they were settling one privacy-related lawsuit related to HIV when this happened. It is surprising, at the least, that Aetna would not take care in sending this,” said Dornfeld.
An Aetna spokesman, T.J. Crawford, said the company would not comment on the litigation.
|
Medical insurance company
The New Jersey suit follows three potential class actions over the same mailings that have been filed against Aetna in federal courts around the country—on Oct. 12 in Hartford, on Sept. 25 in San Diego, and on Aug. 28 in Philadelphia. But the New Jersey case, filed on behalf of two unnamed plaintiffs, is not a class action.
The suits concern letters sent by Aetna to 12,000 insureds in envelopes with large glassine windows, revealing the recipient's name and address and indicating that the mailing concerned the recipient's HIV medications.
The company's dilemma is made worse by the fact that the letters in question were sent out as part of the settlement of prior lawsuits claiming the company breached the privacy of patients using HIV medications.
In 2014 and 2015, Aetna was sued in two other potential class actions, Doe v. Aetna in the Southern District of California and Doe v.
The New Jersey suit is brought under the state AIDS Assistance Act, which requires health care providers to protect the privacy of people with HIV and AIDS. The act also creates a private cause of action for individuals who are subject to violation under the act, and allows courts to award punitive damages for “wantonly reckless conduct” by the party that commits the violation.
“Despite the fact that the first AIDS case was identified 40 years ago, people living with HIV and AIDS still face extreme stigma,” the suit claims.
The plaintiffs in the New Jersey case say that when they received the letters, they were not deposited in their mailbox but were left on their front porch. The plaintiffs said the letters were deposited on their porch after they were apparently delivered in error to one of their neighbors. The letters were discovered by the mother of one of the plaintiffs, who was not aware until then that the plaintiffs were taking HIV medication, the suit said. The discovery “has caused terrible problems and difficulty in the plaintiffs' household,” the suit claims.
The mailings placed one of the plaintiffs in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to family members that he was living with HIV. The other plaintiff was forced to explain that he was not living with HIV but was taking the medication as part of a regimen of pre-exposure prophylaxis, the suit said.
“These questions led to further embarrassing and invasive discussions on why plaintiffs need to protect themselves, which activities put themselves at risk and other topics of an intimate nature. These conversations have changed the nature of the plaintiffs' family relationship to one another and within their household,” the suit said.
Lani Dornfeld, Edward Capozzi and Dennis Shlionsky of
“It's kind of crazy—they were settling one privacy-related lawsuit related to HIV when this happened. It is surprising, at the least, that Aetna would not take care in sending this,” said Dornfeld.
An Aetna spokesman, T.J. Crawford, said the company would not comment on the litigation.
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 All$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readJury Awards Horizon $2.4 Million for Fraudulent Billing Against 3 NJ Health Care Providers
2 minute readVirtua Drug Tests Pregnancy Patients Without Consent, NJ Attorney General Alleges in New Suit
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Considers Ability to Add Nonparty Doctors to Med Mal Verdict Sheets
4 minute readTrending 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