Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Community Health Care Services, Inc.
418 S.W.3d 547
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Mark Stevens received emergency care in May–June 2010 and later died; his widow Christine Stevens (Plaintiff) sent pre-suit notices on April 11, 2011 to several providers and included a medical authorization.
- The authorization permitted release of records to Plaintiff’s counsel only and omitted several HIPAA-required elements (e.g., description of information, authorized disclosers, purpose).
- Plaintiff filed suit Sept. 13, 2011 and alleged compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a); defendants moved to dismiss for noncompliance with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E).
- The trial court denied dismissal, excusing noncompliance as extraordinary cause (citing the decedent’s death, actual notice, and filing of a certificate of good faith).
- Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed whether § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) requires strict or substantial compliance, whether Plaintiff complied, whether extraordinary cause excuses failure, and what remedy applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) requires strict or substantial compliance | Substantial compliance is sufficient | Requirements are mandatory for defendants to obtain records; compliance is essential | Substantial compliance standard applies to (a)(2)(E) (not strict), but authorization must allow providers to obtain each other’s records and meet HIPAA elements in practice |
| Whether Plaintiff’s authorization satisfied § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) | The notice as a whole met the statute’s purpose; authorization flaws were nonfatal | Authorization was non-HIPAA-compliant and prevented defendants from obtaining records | Authorization was materially deficient, failed multiple HIPAA elements and did not substantially comply |
| Whether extraordinary cause excuses noncompliance | Death of decedent, actual notice, and certificate of good faith justify excuse; defendants should have pointed out deficiency | No extraordinary cause shown; statutory requirements must be met by plaintiff | No extraordinary cause: decedent’s death did not prevent personal representative from executing authorization; notice/certificate do not excuse § (a)(2)(E) noncompliance |
| Remedy for failure to comply with § 29-26-121(a)(2)(E) | If noncompliance, at most dismissal without prejudice | Dismissal appropriate (debated whether with prejudice) | Case dismissed without prejudice; legislature’s separate sanction for certificate-of-good-faith violations indicates dismissal with prejudice is not mandatory here |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals, 407 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2013) (statutory interpretation review principles)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (pre-suit notice timing and when strict compliance is required)
- Jones v. Prof’l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564 (Tenn. 2006) (prejudice-focused substantial compliance analysis)
- Alsip v. Johnson City Med. Ctr., 197 S.W.3d 722 (Tenn. 2006) (physician-patient confidentiality and discovery limits)
- Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383 (Tenn. 2002) (defendants’ right to medical records for defense)
- Lee Med, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (legislative-awareness presumption in statutory interpretation)