Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Data Security, HIPAA & Confidentiality Issues

The Fourth Circuit recently held that the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (“CFAA”) prohibitions against unauthorized access or access in excess of authorization were not violated by an employee when the employee used his valid access to employer's computer network to download confidential business information that he later used while working for a competitor.

Prior to his departure from his former employer, the defendant downloaded proprietary information from the plaintiff's network which he allegedly used to win a contract for business. The plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against defendant, alleging, among other things, that he violated the CFAA when he downloaded its proprietary information. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that its policy prohibited employees from downloading confidential and proprietary information to a personal computer. 

In dismissing the CFAA claim, the trial court held, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, that this policy only regulated the use of company information, not accessing that information.  Accordingly, a violation of the policy would not support liability under the CFAA's authorized access provisions. The court ruled that the CFAA prohibits unauthorized acts of obtaining and altering information from a protected computer, not using without authority lawfully accessed information. Because the employee in this case was permitted to have access to the information at the time he downloaded it, his later use of that information for a subsequent employer did not violate the CFAA.

By its holding, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit.  However, the court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s reading of the CFAA that an employee loses lawful authority to access an employer's computer network if the access violates the employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty to the employer. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuit have similarly held that employees will exceed authorized access under the CFAA whenever they go beyond their authorized access. 

While this decision may have limited Fourth Circuit employers’ ability to seek legal action against departing employees under the CFAA, employers in other jurisdictions, as highlighted above, must still consider what remedies may be available under the CFAA.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found the confidentiality rights of patients outweighed a plaintiff’s need to take discovery of patient medical records in Kapp v. Jewish Hospital, Inc.  Plaintiff, a former nurse, brought suit in the federal court in Ohio, alleging she was terminated in violation of federal employment discrimination laws.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged defendant had alternative motives for plaintiff’s termination, including plaintiff’s age, perceived disability, and plaintiff’s request for FMLA leave.  To establish her case, plaintiff sought to ascertain through the discovery process, whether other similarly situated nurses, were treated in a like manner.  To do so, plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking access to non-party patient records in an attempt to discern if other nurses participated in essentially the same conduct for which defendant terminated plaintiff, but were not themselves terminated.  The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and held that Ohio's strict physician-patient privilege law applied to prevent production of the records.  The plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, and those objections were heard by the District Court Judge.  The District Court Judge held that “[a]lthough state privilege law does not control…there are abundant and adequate federal principals that protect patient confidentiality.”  The Court went on to state,

the non-party patients’ right to confidentiality outweighs the plaintiff’s proffered justification for accessing the non-party patient medical records. 

The Court went on to say that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act expresses a general federal policy favoring patients' right to confidentiality and HIPAA's Privacy Rule grants federal protections for patients' personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients rights regarding that information. In this case, the plaintiff had other, less-intrusive options for discovering whether the hospital treated similarly situated nurses differently, including, for example, narrowing the scope of the request by deposing other nurses who had worked with the physician in question, the hospital's human resources personnel, or other nurse supervisors.

The broad discovery sought by plaintiff in this matter is not an uncommon approach taken by the plaintiff’s bar in an effort to prove the merits of their client’s claims.  Employers, especially those in the healthcare industry, must be aware of opinions like Kapp in their efforts to limit plaintiff’s unfounded discovery requests and to protect their patients’ privacy.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Missouri federal district court has ruled, in I.S. v. Washington University, that a HIPAA-covered entity's disclosure of protected information can form the basis for a state-law negligence claim.  The Court reached this holding despite the well-accepted principle there is no private cause of action under HIPAA. 

The plaintiff, I.S., was undergoing medical treatment for colon cancer at Washington University.  I.S. gave Washington University a limited authorization to disclose only the dates of her treatments in order to satisfy her employer’s medical leave requirements.  Notwithstanding this limited authorization, plaintiff asserts that Washington University also sent her employer additional medical records and information that far exceeded her authorization. These included I.S.’s HIV status, mental health issues, and insomnia treatments.  Based on that disclosure, I.S. sued Washington University for negligence per se based on a violation of HIPAA. 

Procedurally, Washington University removed the state court action to federal court and sought dismissal of the negligence per se claim, arguing that HIPAA does not create a private cause of action. 

The district court, disagreeing with Washington University, held the plaintiff’s claim could stand despite its exclusive reliance on HIPAA.   The court held that a federal statute that does not provide for a private right of action nevertheless may be a legitimate element of a state law negligence per se claim. 

Under Missouri law, among other things, the plaintiff must show:

·         a violation of a statute or ordinance occurred,

·         the plaintiff was a member of the class of people intended to be protected,

·         the injury complained of was of the type intended to protect against, and

·         the violation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.  

The Court found that I.S. had met all of the required elements of her claim and remanded the case back to state court. It held that I.S.'s claim, although premised on HIPAA, did not raise a federal question as it did not raise any compelling federal interests or present a substantial federal question.  

This case illustrates the need for HIPAA covered entities to provide training and institute policies and procedures regarding HIPAA compliance.  Here, a process for responding to requests for information would have highlighted the importance of carefully adhering to the limits of the authorization and prevented this alleged unauthorized disclosure, thus precluding I.S.’s claims.  Additionally, employers, and their counsel, must be aware that common law claims may support litigation based on HIPAA, despite the fact HIPAA itself does not provide for a private cause of action. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The confidentiality of medical records requirement under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) is violated when an employer discloses a current or former employee's medical records in response to a state court subpoena absent the employee's release or some other exception under the ADA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently held in Bennett v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2011 WL 244217 (E.E.O.C.), Jan. 11, 2011.

Companies frequently receive requests for information about current and former employees. These requests often come in the form of an attorney's demand letter or a subpoena and apply to the individual's medical records. Those receiving such requests typically feel compelled to respond without taking the time to think through issues such as: 

• what kind of information in contained within the files being requested;
• what specific statutory or regulatory protections apply for some or all of the information being requested (see below);
• is a response appropriate without an authorization of the individual or giving an individual an opportunity to object;
• is a court order needed for some or all of the information being requested; and
• what safeguards should be taken to ensure the disclosure is secure.

As we have reported previously, failing to think through these issues can be a costly trap for the unwary.

EEOC Analysis

In the Bennett decision cited above, the EEOC sets out the basic ADA requirements concerning confidentiality of employee medical records:

Title I of the [ADA] requires that all information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of an applicant or employee must be maintained on separate forms and in separate files and must be treated as confidential medical records. [Citations omitted]. These requirements also extend to medical information that an
individual voluntarily discloses to an employer. [Citations omitted]. The confidentiality obligation imposed on an employer by the ADA remains regardless of whether an applicant is eventually hired or the employment relationship ends. [Citations omitted]. These requirements apply to confidential medical information from any applicant or employee and are not limited to individuals with disabilities. [Citations omitted].

The decision goes on to explain the general exceptions to these requirements:

• supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations;
• first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment; 
• government officials investigating compliance with this part shall be provided relevant information on request;
• employers may disclose medical information to state workers' compensation offices, state second injury funds, workers' compensation insurance carriers, and to health care professionals when seeking advice in making reasonable accommodation determinations; and
• employers may use medical information for insurance purposes.

The EEOC found that the Postal Service's disclosure of Mr. Bennett's medical records in response to the subpoena issued by the Galveston County 405th District Court did not fall into one of these exceptions. The EEOC held that while the ADA allows an employer to comply with the requirements of another federal statute or rule, even if in conflict with the ADA, "it is not a valid defense to argue that the [Postal Service's] actions were required by state law," (emphasis added) unless one of the ADA exceptions applied.  The Commission also noted the subpoena in this case was signed and issued by the Deputy Clerk, and did not qualify as an “order” for purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974, on which the Agency attempted to rely to permit the disclosure.

Because of this violation of the ADA, the EEOC ordered the Postal Service (i) to start an investigation into compensatory and other damages that may be due to Mr. Bennett,  (ii) to conduct training concerning the ADA's confidentiality requirements, and (iii) to prepare a report regarding corrective action. The Postal Service also may be responsible for Mr. Bennett's attorneys' fees, among other things.

Is the ADA the only concern?

In short, no, the ADA is only one protection for medical and other personal information that could trigger exposure for a company that improperly discloses such information. There is an increasing array of federal and state laws that need to be examined, as appropriate, before responding to a request:

• GINA: Regulations issued under Title II (GINA's employment provisions) provide that  employers that possess genetic information must maintain the information in confidence and may not disclose that information except in limited circumstances, such as (i) at the request of the employee, (ii) in response to a court order, (iii) to respond to a request from a government official investigating GINA compliance, or (iv) in support of an employee’s FMLA certification. The preamble to the GINA regulations provides that the court order exception "does not allow disclosures in other circumstances during litigation, such as in response to discovery requests or subpoenas that are not governed by an order specifying that genetic information must be disclosed. Thus, a covered entity’s refusal to provide genetic information in response to a discovery order, subpoena, or court order that does not specify that genetic information must be disclosed is consistent with the requirements of GINA." Additionally, the individual whose genetic information is disclosed may need to be notified. 
• HIPAA: The privacy regulations under HIPAA likewise generally prohibit the disclosure of "protected health information" except in limited circumstances. HIPAA regulation 45 CFR 164.512(e), among other exceptions to the general rule, provides an exception for disclosures in connection with administrative and judicial proceedings. But one of the first questions to ask is whether the information being sought is "protected health information." Very often, employee medical information in a personnel or medical file is not, in the hands of the employer, protected health information subject to HIPAA. 
• 42 USC Part 2: Federal law provides very stringent protection for records relating to substance abuse treatment at certain federally funded facilities. 
• State law: Many states have laws protecting certain classes of medical records from disclosure without taking appropriate safeguards to address confidentiality. This includes application of the physician-patient privilege, as well as statutes and regulations dealing with specific types of information, such as mental health records. 

Because of these issues, businesses should develop a clear policy and procedure to direct employees on how to respond when they receive these requests. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a uniquely timed second showing of enforcement authority, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on February 24, 2011 a one million dollar settlement with a Massachusetts hospital that allegedly breached patient data.  This settlement announcement comes only days after HHS announced a 4.3 million dollar HIPAA Privacy Rule fine.  The Massachusetts hospital settlement resulted from a hospital employee who took home documents containing sensitive personal information on patients. The employee then lost those documents while commuting to work.  

While the settlement did not include an admission of liability, in addition to the monetary settlement, and submitting to HHS oversight, the hospital must also adopt more stringent privacy practices and retain an independent security and privacy monitor. The investigation of the incident found the hospital failed to implement reasonable and appropriate standards to protect the privacy of patient information removed from the facility.  Under the settlement, the hospital must present new privacy and data security administrative, physical, and technical safeguards policies and procedures for HHS approval. Specifically, these policies and procedures must address the physical removal and transportation of protected health information and encryption of portable storage devices.  Despite a general prohibition on employees physically removing protected health information from the hospital,  HHS permitted an exception when the information is removed by an employee to perform his or her job duties.  Additionally, the hospital must implement training for all employees.  

This settlement, when considered with the 4.3 million dollar fine, likely signals how HHS will approach future enforcement actions.  In light of this, covered entities must seriously examine their privacy and security obligations, including implementing appropriate policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of information.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses are customary in settlement agreements and severance contracts in the employment law context. These days, however, the temptation can be irresistible for disgruntled former employees to trash their former employer on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn, on blogs, by text or e-mail or other electronic means.

In the 1800s, Londoners stood on soapboxes at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park to air their grievances to small groups of passers-by. But in 2010, with greater permanency and reach, disgruntled employees are more likely to turn to the Internet to share their thoughts to the entire planet. A former software company employee once sent 200,000 e-mails to 35,000 employees complaining of his treatment by a former employer.

For this reason, standard confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses should include a specific prohibition regarding communications on social media and e-mail, along with a liquidated damages provision. This puts the former employee on notice and will make him or her think twice before “tweeting” about the employer. In addition, a court will be more likely to enforce the agreement and award the company damages for a breach if there is specific language addressing this behavior.

In one recent case, a federal court ruled that an employer was relieved from payment obligations under a confidential settlement agreement after the plaintiff texted her friends about the amount of the settlement. In another case, a former CEO and CFO anonymously posted negative comments about a publicly traded company on Yahoo. The company determined their identity by subpoena and sued under a non-disparagement clause, recovering six-figure severance payments. These cases fly under the radar because they are often filed under seal, but they are increasing. 

A claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause is different from a defamation claim in important ways. Most importantly, truth is not necessarily a defense. Damages are generally limited to liquidated damages or compensation damages. Disgorgement of any severance pay is a proper form of contractual damages for a breach.

In City Group, Inc. v. Ehlers, 402 S.E.2d 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991), a company’s former president was quoted as saying that he left because of “philosophical differences” and that “[i]t was hard to define the direction of the Company.” The company sued him under a non-disparagement clause. The court held that the comments did not constitute disparagement, noting:   The term, "disparagement," is defined in Webster's Third New Intl. Dictionary (1961) as "diminution of esteem or standing and dignity; disgrace . . ., the expression of a low opinion of something; detraction. . . ."  A “disparaging” term, according to the court, can therefore be broadly viewed as a negative statement, even if true. The Webster’s New Riverside University Dictionary defines “derogatory” as “disparaging.” So the terms seem synonymous.

As employers strive to protect their reputation, good will, and employee morale in the age of social media, non-disparagement clauses are worth a look.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks