Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintifflawyerstatuteappealsummary judgmentregulationHIPAAunjust enrichment
plaintiffdamageslawyerstatuteappealsummary judgmentregulationHIPAAunjust enrichment

Related Cases

Draper v. Chiapuzio, 9 F.3d 1391, 62 USLW 2348, 42 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 642
View Case »
Wilson v. El-Daief, 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354
View Case »
Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692, 749 S.E.2d 726, 13 FCDR 3070
View Case »
Wilkins v. Connecticut Childbirth and Women’s Center, 314 Conn. 709, 104 A.3d 671
View Case »
Rice v. Panchal, 65 F.3d 637, 64 USLW 2239, 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1841
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Espinoza v. Gold Cross Services, Inc., 234 P.3d 156, 658 Utah Adv. Rep. 4, 2010 UT App 151

Facts

Gold Cross Services, Inc. provided ambulance services to plaintiffs Espinoza and Hunsaker and charged them a $30 fee for producing copies of their medical records, which were requested to be sent to their lawyers. The plaintiffs argued that the fee was excessive and violated HIPAA, claiming it should have been no more than $0.75 plus postage. They paid the fee under protest and subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting claims under HIPAA and the Utah Consumer Practices Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

¶ 2 Gold Cross provides ambulance services in Salt Lake County, Utah. It provided ambulance services to Espinoza on October 21, 2003, and to Hunsaker on January 5, 2004, after which it compiled medical records related to each plaintiff's transport. … Plaintiffs objected to the fee but paid it 'under protest.'

Issue

Did the district court err in determining that Gold Cross did not violate HIPAA when it charged the plaintiffs $30 for providing their medical records, and did it err in denying summary judgment on their unjust enrichment claim?

¶ 5 Plaintiffs raise two issues on appeal. First, they contend that the district court erred in determining that Gold Cross did not violate HIPAA when it charged them each $30.00 for providing their medical records. Second, they contend that the district court erred in denying summary judgment on their unjust enrichment claim.

Rule

HIPAA does not create a private right of action, and individuals do not have a right to court action under HIPAA. States may create their own causes of action related to HIPAA, but Utah has not done so.

¶ 8 HIPAA does not create a private right of action; '[u]nder HIPAA, individuals do not have a right to court action.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the unjust enrichment claim by determining that the plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Gold Cross by paying the $30 fee, but the court found that the fee was lawful under HIPAA regulations since the records were sent to the plaintiffs' lawyer rather than to the plaintiffs themselves. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim failed because HIPAA does not apply in this context, and there was no state statute providing a remedy for HIPAA violations.

¶ 14 On appeal, the parties continue to dispute whether, under the HIPAA regulations, it was the individuals or their lawyer who requested the records. … We thus arrive at the same conclusion as the district court but by a slightly different route. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim fails not because Gold Cross complied with HIPAA—a question on which we express no opinion—but because HIPAA has no application here.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Gold Cross, concluding that the plaintiffs had no basis for their claims under HIPAA or unjust enrichment.

¶ 16 There is no private right of action under HIPAA, and Plaintiffs have presented us with no state statute establishing a remedy for HIPAA violations. We therefore have no basis to review their claim that Gold Cross violated HIPAA or was thereby unjustly enriched. Affirmed.

Who won?

Gold Cross Services, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the fee charged was lawful under HIPAA regulations and that the plaintiffs had no private right of action under HIPAA.

Gold Cross requests damages on the grounds that Plaintiffs' appeal was … Although we hold that Plaintiffs' claims on appeal lack merit, they are not egregious or frivolous. We accordingly award no costs or fees on appeal.

You must be