570 S.W.3d 229
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Aug. 11, 2016 plaintiff mailed pre-suit notices to multiple healthcare providers alleging care-related claims for her deceased son and included a HIPAA authorization form.
- The authorization’s expiration clause read: “This authorization shall expire on the following date: __ or (2 years from signature) or Event: 08/15/2015.”
- Defendants received the notice and moved to dismiss, arguing the authorization had an expiration date that had already passed and thus was invalid under HIPAA.
- The trial court found the most reasonable reading of the form was that it expired on 08/15/2015, so it was invalid when sent, preventing defendants from lawfully obtaining medical records.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to substantially comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E); plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the authorization’s expiration was two years from signature or 08/15/2015 | The parenthetical “(2 years from signature)” shows plaintiff intended a two-year expiration (event) | The form expressly lists Event: 08/15/2015; that date preceded mailing, so auth. was expired and invalid | Court held the plain reading is expiration on 08/15/2015, so auth. was expired when received and invalid |
| Whether dismissal was warranted given substantial compliance and prejudice | Buckman argued substantial compliance; any defect was non-prejudicial and could be cured | Defendants argued the expired authorization rendered them unable to obtain records and they need not try to obtain records to prove prejudice | Court held plaintiff did not substantially comply; expired auth. was a substantive defect and defendants were prejudiced, so dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (procedures for Rule 12.02 challenges to pre-suit compliance and burden-shifting)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (substantial-compliance standard for HIPAA authorizations in pre-suit notices)
- Bray v. Khuri, 523 S.W.3d 619 (Tenn. 2017) (HIPAA generally prohibits disclosure without a valid authorization)
- J.A.C. by & through Carter v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 542 S.W.3d 502 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (defendants are not required to assist plaintiffs to cure deficient HIPAA forms)
- Byrge v. Parkwest Med. Ctr., 442 S.W.3d 245 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (expired authorization in pre-suit notice rendered notice deficient)
- Thurmond v. Mid-Cumberland Infectious Disease Consultants, PLC, 433 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2014) (summary of Stevens: substantial compliance required to allow defendants access to records)
- Lawson v. Knoxville Dermatology Grp., P.C., 544 S.W.3d 704 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (authorizations missing core HIPAA elements can be noncompliant and prejudicial)