Brown v. Mortensen
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Brown, a patient, was billed $600 for a non-rendered dental crown by Dr. Reinholds; Brown disputed the debt.
- Mortensen, via a collection agency, repeatedly disclosed Brown’s and his children’s confidential medical information to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion.
- Disclosures included names, SSNs, dates of birth, addresses, and Brown’s and his children’s dental histories, without authorization.
- Dr. Reinholds ratified Mortensen’s disclosures and made additional unauthorized disclosures to Equifax.
- Brown alleged violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Civ. Code, § 56 et seq.) and sought damages; the trial court dismissed after a demurrer, Court of Appeal affirmed the preemption ruling.
- The issue presented is whether FCRA § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts Brown’s Confidentiality Act claims or whether state privacy protections survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempt Confidentiality Act claims? | Brown argues broader preemption; state privacy claims are displaced by the FCRA as furnishers. | Mortensen argues claims arise from furnishers’ duties regulated by § 1681s-2 and are preempted. | Preemption is limited to furnisher duties in § 1681s-2 (accuracy and dispute handling). |
| What is the scope of 'subject matter regulated' by § 1681s-2 for preemption purposes? | Broadly covers furnishers' duties, thus preempts state privacy claims. | Only the two specific duties (accuracy and dispute response) are preempted. | Narrow reading: only furnishers' accuracy and dispute-handling duties are preempted. |
| Does HIPAA affect the preemption analysis between FCRA and the Confidentiality Act? | HIPAA signals broader federal privacy framework that supports preemption. | HIPAA and FCRA should be harmonized; HIPAA preserves more stringent state privacy rules. | HIPAA and the Reform Act together support a limited preemption, preserving stricter state privacy laws. |
| Does the Confidentiality Act claim rest on accuracy/dispute handling or on privacy without misstatement? | Disclosures were unauthorized; the claim rests on privacy protection, not accuracy. | If the claim overlaps with § 1681s-2 duties, it is preempted. | Confidentiality Act claims rest on unauthorized disclosure (privacy), not accuracy; not preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (privacy interest in medical information)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (scope of preemption; statutory interpretation)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (textual interpretation and preemption framework)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (congressional intent as touchstone in preemption)
- Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2003) (presumption against preemption in state-federal balance)
- Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 (Cal. 2008) (strong presumption against preemption; field of privacy)