391 S.W.3d 388
Ky. Ct. App.2013Background
- Yeager sued Appellees in Kentucky for HIPAA-related claims arising from a child custody hearing; Appellees disclosed medical records obtained from Clise without consent.
- The guardianship hearing involved cross-examination of Clise about medical history and treatment; Appellees used disclosed records during questioning.
- Clise died of an overdose the day after the hearing; Yeager, executrix of Clise’s estate, asserted HIPAA violations and related claims.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing claims; sanctions under CR 11 were imposed against Yeager’s counsel.
- This Court held HIPAA does not create a private right of action and Appellees are not “covered entities”; sanctions against Yeager’s counsel were vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under HIPAA | Yeager argues HIPAA preempts state law and creates a remedy. | Appellees contend HIPAA has no private right of action and 446.070 does not create one. | No private right of action under HIPAA; 446.070 does not create one. |
| Covered entities under HIPAA | Attorneys should be liable as HIPAA violators due to disclosure. | Attorneys not “covered entities”; disclosures involved non-covered entities. | Appellees are not covered entities; HIPAA regulates only covered entities and their business associates. |
| HIPAA preemption of state statutes for remedies | HIPAA preempts state law creating a private remedy under 446.070. | Congress did not intend to create a private remedy via HIPAA; 446.070 cannot supply one. | Preemption does not create a private remedy; 446.070 does not provide one. |
| Judicial Proceedings Privilege | Disclosures during cross-examination violate privacy rights. | Statements during court proceedings are privileged and relevant to the custody issue. | Judicial proceedings privilege applies; disclosures do not give rise to HIPAA claims. |
| Rule 11 sanctions appropriateness | Sanctions were warranted for filing a meritless HIPAA claim. | Sanctions were improperly imposed; good faith and evolving law supported filing. | Rule 11 sanctions were improper and vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz Donnelly Fried & Forte, P.C., 381 N.J. Super. 119, 885 A.2d 18 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2005) (attorneys not “covered entities” under HIPAA; no private action)
- Meek v. Vasconez, 2006 WL 1652736 (Ky. App. 2006) (discussed HIPAA conduct; not controlling liability for attorneys not covered entities)
- Young v. Carran, 289 S.W.3d 586 (Ky. App. 2008) (HIPAA does not create a state private right of action; 446.070 not broad enough)
- T & M Jewelry, Inc. v. Hicks ex rel. Hicks, 189 S.W.3d 526 (Ky. 2006) (negligence per se statute cannot create private action for federal violations; duty may be informed by federal law)
- Hicks, 189 S.W.3d 526 (Ky. 2006) (refers to similar holding on private right of action under federal law)
- Smith v. Hodges, 199 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2005) (statements in testimony privileged if relevant to action)
- Schmitt v. Mann, 163 S.W.2d 281 (Ky. 1942) (judicial proceedings privilege)
- McMillen v. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections, 233 S.W.3d 203 (Ky. App. 2007) (cited regarding HIPAA and private rights)