In Re Aslam, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5041

Background

Relator Emily Aslam seeks mandamus to overturn a November 10, 2010 contempt order against her for allegedly violating a HIPAA-related provision of the parties' Agreed Final Decree of Divorce.
The decree (June 3, 2010) named Emily and Jamil Aslam as joint managing conservators of one child, Josiah, with mutual rights to health information and Josiah's medical records; Emily must provide health insurance and necessary forms for Josiah's health care.
The decree required the parties within 30 days to execute HIPAA releases and designate the other conservator to receive protected health information.
Jamil moved for enforcement on August 26, 2010, contending Emily failed to execute HIPAA releases and thus hindered access to Josiah's health information; Emily claimed she had completed the actions.
At the September 2010 hearing, Emily testified she had executed the release and placed it in Josiah's medical record but did not give it to Jamil; Jamil testified no release had been delivered and accused Emily of obstructing information.
The trial court found violation of the decree, held Emily in contempt with three days’ confinement, suspended on condition she deliver the HIPAA release by October 18, 2010; the November 10, 2010 order repeated the contempt finding and punishment; in January 2011, findings and conclusions framed Emily as having willfully failed to follow the HIPAA provisions.
In May 2011, Emily filed a petition for writ of mandamus arguing the motion for enforcement alleged only failure to execute, not failure to deliver, thereby depriving her of due process and adequate notice; the court ultimately conditionally grants mandamus to vacate the order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Violation 17 proper notice for contempt?	Aslam argues Violation 17 alleged only failure to execute, not failure to deliver.	Aslam contends the decree required delivery to Jamil and the violation contemplated non-delivery.	Violation 17 lacked clear notice; contempt order void.
Did the order define compliance in a clear, unambiguous way?	Order traced to execution/delivery provisions; Emily allegedly violated the decree.	Order would allow enforcement of HIPAA releases to permit information access.	Order failed to state a clear, specific duty; void.
Was the contempt order an abuse of discretion given the record?	Jamil established non-compliance with HIPAA provisions.	Trial court could determine non-compliance and sanction accordingly.	Court abused discretion due to lack of proper notice and basis for contempt.

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Blasingame, 748 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1988) (contempt requires explicit, unambiguous terms in decree)
Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1995) (contempt judgments require clear compliance terms)
Ex parte Jones, 331 S.W.2d 204 (Tex. 1960) (strict construction of contempt orders)
Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1979) (due process requires full notification in contempt)
Ex parte McIntyre, 730 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987) (burden to prove contempt lies with movant)
Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (nullity for contempt without proper notice)
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (mandamus review limits and standards for abuse of discretion)
In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (de novo review of legal determinations; defer to factual findings)
Ex parte McIntyre, 730 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987) (burden to prove contempt lies with movant)