Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court (Summary)
MEDICAL INFORMATION PRIVACY
Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court, No. B249148 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2013)
The California Court of Appeal granted a university’s petition and issued a writ of mandate directing a lower court to vacate its opinion involving its interpretation of a state medical information privacy statute and enter a new opinion dismissing the action.
A patient filed a class action complaint against the university after receiving a letter informing her that a university hospital physician’s home was broken into and an external hard drive containing patient information had been stolen. The patient claimed that this was a violation of a state law prohibiting health care providers from disclosing a patient’s medical information without authorization except in certain specified circumstances. The lower court held that the patient had sufficiently stated a claim under state law.
The appellate court held that the lower court read the state law too narrowly. The court stated that state legislators intended an action based on state law to require a plaintiff to “plead and prove” that the medical information was released. The court made a distinction between “to release,” which has its own cause of action, and “to disclose,” which has a different cause of action. The court held that negligently releasing information also encompassed the negligent storage of information that allowed a third party to gain access to the information.
While the appellate court held that negligent storage of information was actionable under state law, the patient still did not have enough information to support her claim. The court held that the state law required more than an allegation that the university lost possession of the records to support a claim of negligent release of information and that there was no way for the patient to know whether or not an unauthorized individual viewed her medical records after the hard drive was stolen. Since the patient failed to allege sufficient facts, the appellate court found that the lower court should have dismissed the patient’s claim.
On November 11, 2013, the California Court of Appeal issued an order modifying its opinion and denying rehearing but indicating that there was no change in its judgment. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Sup. Ct., B249148 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2013).