585 S.W.3d 895
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff (Parks) underwent a robotic-assisted hysterectomy and later alleged complications; she provided pre-suit notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and filed suit.
- Pre-suit HIPAA authorizations were attached to the notice but left the “for the purpose” box blank.
- The authorizations authorized each listed provider only "to release, use or disclose" plaintiff’s records to the other named providers, rather than expressly authorizing providers to "obtain" records from one another.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02, arguing the authorizations were not HIPAA-compliant and therefore failed to satisfy § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E).
- The trial court granted the motions, finding the authorizations omitted a core HIPAA element (purpose) and did not permit providers to obtain records, causing prejudice; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-suit HIPAA authorization was "filled out completely" (core element: description of purpose) | Parks: omission is a mere technicality; substantial compliance suffices | Defendants: blank “purpose” field renders authorization invalid under 45 C.F.R. § 164.508(c)(1)(iv) | Held: omission of core element means lack of substantial compliance; authorization invalid |
| Whether the form authorized providers to "obtain" records from each other as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) | Parks: listing providers and mutual authorizations implies ability to request/obtain records | Defendants: form only authorizes release/disclosure, not requests to obtain records; thus noncompliant | Held: form did not permit providers to obtain records from each other; noncompliant |
| Whether defendants had a duty to attempt to use the defective authorization or notify plaintiff of defects before moving to dismiss | Parks: defendants should have tried to obtain records or alerted her before claiming prejudice | Defendants: no duty to test or assist; proper remedy is a 12.02 dismissal challenge | Held: defendants need not test the form or notify plaintiff first; prejudice claim not waived by inaction |
| Whether plaintiff was entitled to avoid dismissal by showing only minor/negligible defect (substantial compliance) | Parks: errors were minor and should not derail claim | Defendants: defects undermined statutory purpose (early access to records) and prejudiced defense | Held: substantial-compliance standard applied; errors here were material and prejudicial, so dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (procedure and burden allocation for § 29-26-121 compliance challenges under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (§ 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) exists to give defendants access to records; authorization must be sufficient under HIPAA)
- J.A.C. by & through Carter v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 542 S.W.3d 502 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (forms markedly inadequate do not facilitate disclosure; defendants not required to assist plaintiffs in achieving compliance)
- Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. 2015) (overruling on other grounds noted; related precedent about pre-suit notice and compliance obligations)