Every time a subpoena for medical records arrives, it creates angst. The medical records custodian experiences pressure to release records from the moment he/she receives a call from the requesting attorney's office, often arguing about whether the subpoena provides enough authority to release the records.
A Connecticut Supreme Court case [1] is getting a lot of attention for allowing state negligence claims based on noncompliance with HIPAA standards. For health information management professionals, the case underscores the need to resist releasing clinical information merely on the basis of a subpoena or at the insistence of an attorney. The court ruled that state court pretrial practices must be HIPAA compliant and that HIPAA requirements extend to responses to subpoenas.[2] The court cited HIPAA regulations, 45 C.F.R. ? 164.512(e)(1)(ii), to reaffirm that a healthcare provider cannot transfer protected health information (PHI) to an outside entity without receiving satisfactory assurances that the person whose medical records are the subject of the subpoena has been given notice of the request. [45 C.F.R. ?165.512(e)(1)(ii)(A)] Usually the subpoena includes some notice language. However, satisfactory assurances requires all of the following:
Thus, before the requested medical record can be released, the provider needs to make sure there are no objections from the affected individual.
Alternatively, a provider may release PHI if it receives satisfactory assurances from the party seeking the information that it has made reasonable efforts to secure a qualified protective order. [45 C.F.R. ?165.512(e)(1)(ii)(B)] Satisfactory assurances requires:
Thus, it is not enough for the subpoena to include a statement that a protective order will be filed or to include draft language for the protective order. The party seeking the PHI needs to have filed the qualified protective order with the court.
Under the new CT Supreme Court case, any healthcare provider in Connecticut who fails to comply with the HIPAA requirements outlined above is now risking a lawsuit by the patient and possible damages for negligence and emotional distress under state law as well as a complaint and possible investigation for violation of HIPAA requirements.
A reasonable and simple best practice in responding to subpoenas for PHI is (1) call the person whose PHI is the subject of the subpoena, (2) inform him/her of the subpoena for PHI, and (3) request authorization to release the PHI. The person can agree to the release or not. If the person agrees, the medical records department can follow its normal process for release of PHI. If the person disagrees, the medical records department should not release the information and should inform the requesting attorney of the individual's objection to the release of his/her PHI. These communications, both call and response, should be documented. If there are questions about the application of the CT Supreme Court case, you should consult with a HIPAA attorney.
----
[1] Byrne v. Avery Ctr., 314 Conn. 433 (2014).
[2] A subpoena issued by an attorney or "officer of the court" is not the same as a subpoena issued by a judicial officer (usually a judge or a magistrate) or a grand jury, which would be considered a court order and allowed under 45 C.F.R. ?165.612(f)(1)(ii).
Day Pitney Cybersecurity, Healthcare and Technology (C.H.A.T.) Newsletter – April 2024
Day Pitney Cybersecurity, Healthcare and Technology (C.H.A.T.) Newsletter – April 2024
Day Pitney Attorneys Elizabeth Retersdorf, Ashley Picker Dubin and Damian Privitera authored the article “What New Conn. Insurance Bulletin Means for Data and AI,” for Law360.
Day Pitney Healthcare Attorneys Susan R. Huntington and Phoebe Roth authored the chapter titled "Using Enterprise Risk Management-Based Frameworks to Advance Population Health" for American Health Law Association (AHLA) and the American Society for Health Care Risk Management's (ASHRM) book titled "Enterprise Risk Management for Health Care."
Day Pitney Healthcare, Life Sciences, and Technology Counsel Damian Privitera's arrival was featured in the Law360 article "Moses & Singer Healthcare Atty Joins Day Pitney in Hartford."
Day Pitney Healthcare Partner Magda Rodriguez authored the article "When Physician Retirement Arrangements May Be Legal" for Law360.
Day Pitney Cybersecurity, Healthcare and Technology (C.H.A.T.) Newsletter – February 2024
Day Pitney Cybersecurity, Healthcare and Technology (C.H.A.T.) Newsletter – February 2024
Day Pitney Artificial Intelligence Committee Chair Kritika Bharadwaj and Healthcare and Technology Associate Colton Kopcik authored the article "Generative AI in Health Care: Diagnosing the Legal Landscape for Dr. GenAI" for the New York Law Journal's Legal Technology Special Section.
Copyright © 2024 Day Pitney LLP, all rights reserved.