186 A.3d 823
D.C.2018Background
- Dr. Jessica Velcoff was treated at MedStar-owned National Rehabilitation Hospital after a work-related car accident; treatment included inpatient and outpatient psychological care.
- MedStar provided a privacy policy promising confidentiality of personal health information except as required by law.
- Velcoff filed a workers’ compensation claim; during/after treatment her psychologist disclosed detailed session notes and other mental-health information to the workers’ compensation insurer without her written consent.
- Velcoff sued under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), the D.C. Mental Health Information Act (MHIA), and for breach of the common-law duty of confidentiality; the trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, found Velcoff had standing, concluded the complaint sufficiently pleaded CPPA violations and that dismissal was premature, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint adequately pleaded CPPA illegal trade practices | Velcoff: MedStar misrepresented and failed to provide promised confidentiality; these are illegal trade practices under the CPPA | MedStar/trial court: Complaint lacked specificity about which CPPA subsections were violated | Court: Complaint alleges specific misleading practices with adequate specificity to survive dismissal |
| Whether disclosures were authorized by D.C. health-information sharing statute (§ 7-242) | Velcoff: MHIA prohibited disclosure; statutory sharing provision does not apply to MedStar/insurer here | MedStar/trial court: § 7-242 permits sharing among agencies/service providers | Court: § 7-242 appears inapplicable (defines “agency” and “service provider” narrowly) and does not override MHIA prohibitions on this record |
| Whether Workers’ Compensation Act authorizes disclosure to insurer (§ 32-1507(i) / records rules) | Velcoff: MHIA requires written authorization for third-party payors; personal notes are specially protected | MedStar/trial court: Seeking workers’ comp implies consent/waiver of privacy for related medical information | Court: Workers’ Comp provisions permit medical reports in the record but do not plainly authorize the alleged insurer disclosures or override MHIA; unresolved factual/legal questions require remand |
| Whether plaintiff consented or alleged damages sufficiently | MedStar: Velcoff consented by pursuing workers’ comp; also argued lack of damages | Velcoff: No written authorization; sought statutory damages and injunction; sought leave to amend | Court: Consent and damages issues not resolved; trial court did not decide amendment request; declined to address alternative defenses and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. District of Columbia, 63 A.3d 551 (D.C. 2013) (standard for review of motion to dismiss and pleading requirements)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (Article III standing and CPPA injuries can create standing)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (U.S. 2014) (pleading rules do not require perfect statement of legal theory)
- Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (dissemination of materially false/private information can satisfy injury-in-fact)
- In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) (unauthorized disclosure of private information can constitute injury)
- Howard Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 960 A.2d 603 (D.C. 2008) (Compensation Review Board as administrative expert under Workers’ Compensation Act)
- van Leeuwen v. Blodnikar, 144 A.3d 565 (D.C. 2016) (remand appropriate where trial court has not addressed threshold factual/legal questions)