316 F. Supp. 3d 471
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- On June 15, 2017, Hope Lee-Thomas used a LabCorp computer intake station at Providence Hospital; her protected health information was allegedly visible to another patient at a nearby Quest Diagnostics station.
- Lee-Thomas notified a LabCorp technician, photographed the stations, and filed administrative complaints with HHS OCR and the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR).
- Both administrative complaints were dismissed (HHS declined to pursue; OHR dismissed for failure to state a claim); OHR noted she could pursue other claims in D.C. Superior Court.
- Lee-Thomas filed suit in D.C. Superior Court alleging a HIPAA privacy violation; LabCorp removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- LabCorp argued HIPAA does not create a private right of action; Lee-Thomas did not file a timely opposition to the motion and thus was treated as having conceded under Local Civ. R. 7(b).
- The district court granted LabCorp's motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and as conceded under the local rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HIPAA creates a private cause of action | Lee-Thomas contends LabCorp's public intake station violated HIPAA privacy protections and supports a private suit | LabCorp argues HIPAA contains no private right of action; enforcement is through HHS and state AGs | Court held HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action; dismissal for failure to state a claim |
| Whether failure to respond to motion supports dismissal under Local Rule 7(b) | (No timely opposition filed) | LabCorp invoked Local Civ. R. 7(b) to treat the motion as conceded | Court held Lee-Thomas conceded by failing to respond and dismissed on that procedural ground as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (no private right of action under HIPAA)
- Adams v. Eureka Fire Prot. Dist., [citation="352 F. App'x 137"] (8th Cir. 2009) (courts have repeatedly held HIPAA creates no private cause of action)
- Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 806 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2011) (collecting cases finding no private HIPAA cause of action)
- Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal under Local Civ. R. 7(b))
- Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (discussing application of Local Rule 7(b) to motions other than summary judgment)