48 Pa. D. & C.5th 397
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Plaintiff Mary Jane Simon (82) slipped and fell during a supervised exercise/therapy session at Defendant Specialty Orthopaedics’ Wellness Center and alleges injuries from the fall.
- Plaintiff served interrogatories and document requests seeking identities of eyewitnesses; Defendant objected, invoking HIPAA.
- Court previously granted a motion to compel; multiple discovery motions followed and briefing/hearing occurred concerning whether HIPAA protects witness identities.
- Defendant argued it was a HIPAA-covered provider and that witness identities were protected health information; Plaintiff argued identities are not PHI and must be produced.
- Court concluded: HIPAA does not create a blanket evidentiary privilege; Defendant failed to show it is a covered entity that transmitted protected transactions; and witness identities sought do not constitute protected health information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HIPAA creates an evidentiary privilege in judicial proceedings | HIPAA should not block discovery of witnesses | HIPAA prevents disclosure of identities as protected information | Court: HIPAA does not create an absolute evidentiary privilege; disclosure can occur under HIPAA rules (e.g., §164.512(e)) |
| Whether Defendant is a HIPAA-covered entity | Identities may be produced because defendant is not a covered entity | Defendant: Wellness Center provides therapy and employs providers, so it is covered | Court: Defendant did not show it conducts required electronic "transactions" to trigger HIPAA; therefore not shown to be a covered entity |
| Whether witness identities are "protected health information" | Identities of eyewitnesses are not PHI because they do not relate to health, care, or payment | Identities are protected because they are tied to patrons present in a healthcare setting | Court: Identity of witnesses who merely observed the fall is not PHI under HIPAA definitions |
| Scope and remedy for noncompliance with discovery | Produce names/contacts of eyewitnesses present at time of accident | Resist production asserting HIPAA protection | Court: Defendant compelled to produce names, telephone numbers and addresses of persons present at the Wellness Center at time of accident; discovery extended 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (HIPAA does not create an evidentiary privilege and §164.512(e) permits disclosure in judicial proceedings)
- Erie Indemnity Co. v. Coal Operators Cas. Co., 272 A.2d 465 (Pa. 1971) (facts or exhibits attached only to briefs are not part of the record)
- Scopel v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 698 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. 1997) (exhibits attached to briefs are not part of the record)