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

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialmalpracticecomplianceregulationHIPAA
plaintiffjurisdictionattorneytrialmalpracticeregulationHIPAAcase law

Related Cases

Hankla v. Postell, 293 Ga. 692, 749 S.E.2d 726, 13 FCDR 3070
View Case »
Tunkl v. Regents of University of Cal., 23 Cal.Rptr. 328
View Case »
York v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 222 Ill.2d 147, 854 N.E.2d 635, 305 Ill.Dec. 43
View Case »
Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3
View Case »
Washburn v. Rite Aid Corp., 695 A.2d 495
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moreland v. Austin, 284 Ga. 730, 670 S.E.2d 68, 08 FCDR 3431, 09 FCDR 6

Facts

Following the death of her husband, Jimmy Lee Moreland, Amanda Moreland filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Michael Austin. She produced her husband's medical records, which included information from his previous physicians. Defense counsel contacted these physicians to discuss the patient's medical condition, prompting the widow to object on the grounds that these communications violated HIPAA. The trial court ruled that the doctor could interview the physicians with prior notice to the widow, but this decision was appealed.

Following the death of her husband, Jimmy Lee Moreland, plaintiff Amanda Moreland brought this malpractice action against Dr. Michael Austin in the State Court of Bibb County. Plaintiff produced her husband's medical records, including documents pertaining to his treatment by Dr. Jose Rodriguez, Dr. Juan Esnard, and Dr. Edward Young.

Issue

Does the Privacy Rule of HIPAA preclude a defendant's attorneys from informally interviewing a plaintiff's prior treating physicians in a medical malpractice case?

The question then is whether ex parte communications between defense counsel and plaintiff's physicians violate the HIPAA privacy rule. They do if HIPAA preempts state law in this area.

Rule

HIPAA preempts state law regarding the informal communication of protected health information, requiring that such communications comply with its regulations, including obtaining patient consent or a court order.

HIPAA and the related provisions established in the Code of Federal Regulations expressly supercede any contrary provisions of State law except as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1320d–7 (a)(2).

Analysis

The court analyzed the conflict between HIPAA and Georgia state law, concluding that HIPAA provides more stringent protections for patient privacy in the context of informal communications. It determined that while Georgia law allows for informal contact with treating physicians once a plaintiff puts their medical condition at issue, HIPAA requires that any disclosure of protected health information must be done in compliance with its rules, which include obtaining consent or a court order.

After reviewing HIPAA, Georgia law, and the case law of other jurisdictions, we find that HIPAA preempts Georgia law with regard to ex parte communications between defense counsel and plaintiff's prior treating physicians because HIPAA affords patients more control over their medical records when it comes to informal contacts between litigants and physicians.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that HIPAA preempts state law regarding ex parte communications between defense counsel and a plaintiff's prior treating physicians, and that such communications cannot occur without compliance with HIPAA regulations.

HIPAA protects a patient from the unauthorized disclosure of protected health information and it is applicable to ex parte oral communications between defense counsel and a plaintiff's prior treating physicians.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiff, Amanda Moreland, as the Supreme Court ruled in her favor by affirming the necessity of HIPAA compliance for communications with her husband's prior treating physicians.

The remedy fashioned by the trial court in this case, permitting defense counsel to interview Mr. Moreland's prior treating physicians, but only after giving plaintiff notice and enabling her attorneys to be present when the physicians are interviewed, lies well within a trial court's discretion.

You must be