Harrold-Jones v. Drury, 422 P.3d 568

Harrold-Jones sued Denali Orthopedic and two doctors for medical malpractice after shoulder surgery and refused multiple requests to sign broad HIPAA-compliant medical authorizations permitting ex parte contact between defense counsel and her treating physicians.
Denali moved to compel the authorization and the superior court granted the motion relying on Langdon v. Champion, which had approved defendant ex parte interviews of a plaintiff’s treating physician as informal discovery.
Harrold-Jones petitioned for review asking whether HIPAA preempts Alaska’s ex parte contact rule or otherwise requires modification.
The Alaska Supreme Court analyzed HIPAA (Subtitle F and the Privacy Rule), focusing on the authorization and litigation exceptions to HIPAA’s disclosure prohibition and the regulations’ court‑order/notice/qualified protective order requirements.
The Court concluded HIPAA does not expressly preempt Alaska’s prior case law, but HIPAA’s procedural requirements and a cultural shift toward medical privacy undermined the rationale for allowing ex parte contacts over a plaintiff’s objection.
The Court reversed the superior court, overruled Langdon to the extent it allowed defense ex parte contacts over a plaintiff’s objection, and remanded — holding that ex parte contacts require either plaintiff agreement or a court order issued only in extraordinary circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does HIPAA preempt Alaska case law authorizing defense ex parte interviews of a plaintiff’s treating physician?	Harrold-Jones: HIPAA preempts because state law cannot be less protective than HIPAA.	Denali: HIPAA permits disclosures via authorization or court order; no preemption.	HIPAA does not preempt Langdon because HIPAA contains exceptions (authorization, litigation) allowing disclosure consistent with state procedures.
Should Alaska continue to allow defendant ex parte contact with a plaintiff’s treating physician over plaintiff’s objection?	Harrold-Jones: Modern HIPAA framework and privacy concerns make ex parte contacts improper absent court oversight.	Denali: Langdon and prior precedent permit informal ex parte contacts to promote settlement and efficiency.	Overruled Langdon in part: absent plaintiff agreement, ex parte contact without a court order is not allowed; court orders should be rare and limited to extraordinary circumstances.
Was it proper for the superior court to compel Harrold-Jones to sign Denali’s broad authorization?	Harrold-Jones: The requested release was overbroad, included sensitive records, and no special need was shown.	Denali: Sought broad access to evaluate malpractice claims.	It was error to compel the broad release; further medical discovery must follow formal discovery and comply with HIPAA.

Langdon v. Champion, 745 P.2d 1371 (Alaska 1987) (approved informal ex parte conferences with a plaintiff’s treating physician)
Trans-World Investments v. Drobny, 554 P.2d 1148 (Alaska 1976) (plaintiff’s suit waives physician-patient privilege as to relevant medical information)
Arctic Motor Freight, Inc. v. Stover, 571 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1977) (filing a personal injury suit results in waiver of physician-patient privilege for relevant matters)
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 102 P.3d 937 (Alaska 2004) (standards for when to overrule precedent under stare decisis)
Sorensen v. Barbuto, 177 P.3d 614 (Utah 2008) (limiting ex parte disclosures and requiring judicial monitoring to define scope)