Huse, Hayden
PD-0433-14
| Tex. App. | Jan 14, 2015Background
- State v. Huse involves a challenge to the process by which medical records were obtained from a third-party covered entity.
- Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) offers an amicus brief arguing that HIPAA creates a reasonable expectation of privacy and standing to challenge such disclosures.
- Hardy held no standing and no expectation of privacy in certain medical record disclosures; a dissent urged privacy protections exist.
- TCDLA contends HIPAA preempts Hardy and clarifies that individuals have standing when their medical records are obtained through legal processes.
- HIPAA generally restricts disclosure of identifiable health information unless consent or a legally permitted exception applies, with initial compliance by covered entities in 2003.
- The brief compares the privacy interest to passengers challenging a stop and cites Brendlin and Kothe to analogize standing to challenge the record-gathering process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge records process | Huse has standing to challenge how records were obtained. | Hardy denies standing / privacy expectation in medical records. | HIPAA creates standing; Hardy preempted. |
| HIPAA compliance and remedy | HIPAA requires privacy protections before disclosure by covered entities. | HIPAA not addressed or remedy not specified in Hardy. | HIPAA governs disclosure; remedies exist under privacy requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997) (no privacy expectation in medical records under Hardy)
- Kirsch v. State, 276 S.W.3d 579 (Tex.App.-Hou. [1st] 2008) (HIPAA preemption discussions; later affirmed on other grounds)
- Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Cr.App. 2010) (final Crim.App. ruling related to Kirsch proceedings)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger standing to challenge stop)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.Cr.App. 2004) (standing to challenge seizure in a tethered context)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (come-at-by theory for standing under exclusionary rules)
- U.S. v. Zamora, 408 F. Supp.2d 295 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (HIPAA disclosure limits and compelled disclosures)