Weinberg v. Advanced Data Processing, Inc.
147 F. Supp. 3d 1359
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Plaintiff Weinberg sues ADP and Intermedix for failing to safeguard emergency medical information of the Class under HIPAA-related theories.
- Intermedix handled billing/payments for EMS, obtaining sensitive information from patients like Weinberg during ambulance services in 2012.
- An Intermedix employee allegedly accessed the Sensitive Information of hundreds/thousands of EMS patients and disclosed it to third parties who used it for fraudulent tax returns.
- Plaintiff claims that the data breach caused identity theft and ongoing harms including anxiety, privacy loss, and economic damages, and that Defendants breached duties related to safeguarding information.
- Complaint asserts three counts: negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment; Defendants move to dismiss some claims, arguing lack of duty and conclusory pleadings.
- Court grants Defendants’ motion in part and denies in part, allowing negligence and unjust enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing the fiduciary-duty claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty existence for negligence claim | Weinberg argues duty arises from HIPAA, undertaker’s doctrine, and foreseeability. | Intermedix contends no applicable duty beyond a direct relationship and HIPAA does not create a private right. | Duty established; negligence survives. |
| HIPAA as basis for negligence per se | HIPAA violations support a duty and negligence per se claim. | HIPAA provides no private right of action; cannot ground negligence per se. | Negligence per se claim based on HIPAA dismissed. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty viability | Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to protect Class information due to handling and storage of data. | No direct or fiduciary relationship; mere receipt of confidential information is insufficient. | Breach of fiduciary duty claim dismissed. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Direct benefit to Defendants from Plaintiff’s payments through EMS; intermediaries do not defeat direct benefit. | No direct conferral of benefit to Defendants; unjust enrichment not adequately pled. | Unjust enrichment claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012) (duty principles and negligence elements; foreseeability guidance)
- Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2003) (duty arising from general facts and undertaker’s doctrine)
- Zinn v. United States, 835 F.Supp.2d 1280 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (foreseeable zone of risk as duty source)
- Jaffe v. Bank of Am., N.A., 667 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (fiduciary relationship concepts in arm's-length transactions)
- Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc., 953 F.Supp.2d 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (unjust enrichment standards and benefit conferred)