The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 35-37

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 35... ... 35 4. In an amount of less than $50,000 for a violation in which it is established that the violation was due to willful neglect and was not corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the first date a covered entity or business associate liable for the penalty knew or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known that a violation had occurred.331 The Secretary is permitted to consider a number of mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the amount of a CMP,332 to settle any issue or compromise any penalty,333 and to collect any penalty including by a civil action brought in the appropriate federal district court.334 As of May 31, 2012, the OCR of HHS had investigated and resolved over 16,259 cases with most complaints being filed against private practices, general hospitals, outpatient facilities, health plans, and pharmacies.335 Prior to HITECH, most of the alleged HIPAA violations did not result in an assessment of actual monetary damages.336 Even in cases in which penalties are assessed, complainants generally do not receive a portion of the CMPs collected from covered entities or business associates. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 within "this constitutionally protected sphere" that is actionable under § 1983.345 In Matson, the Second Circuit discussed medical conditions that are protected by a constitutional right of privacy. Matson suffered from a medical condition known as fibromyalgia. Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... 37 courts determine on a case-by-case basis whether the disclosure of a particular medical condition comes within the narrow parameters of a constitutional right to privacy that is actionable under § 1983.365 As for § 1983 and HIPAA violations, it does not appear that the courts would permit a § 1983 action against a transit agency on the basis of an alleged violation of HIPAA. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzaga University v. Read the entire page →

From page 35...

... 35 4. In an amount of less than $50,000 for a violation in which it is established that the violation was due to willful neglect and was not corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the first date a covered entity or business associate liable for the penalty knew or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known that a violation had occurred.331 The Secretary is permitted to consider a number of mitigating and aggravating factors in determining the amount of a CMP,332 to settle any issue or compromise any penalty,333 and to collect any penalty including by a civil action brought in the appropriate federal district court.334 As of May 31, 2012, the OCR of HHS had investigated and resolved over 16,259 cases with most complaints being filed against private practices, general hospitals, outpatient facilities, health plans, and pharmacies.335 Prior to HITECH, most of the alleged HIPAA violations did not result in an assessment of actual monetary damages.336 Even in cases in which penalties are assessed, complainants generally do not receive a portion of the CMPs collected from covered entities or business associates.

Read the entire page →

From page 36...

... 36 within "this constitutionally protected sphere" that is actionable under § 1983.345 In Matson, the Second Circuit discussed medical conditions that are protected by a constitutional right of privacy. Matson suffered from a medical condition known as fibromyalgia.

Read the entire page →

From page 37...

... 37 courts determine on a case-by-case basis whether the disclosure of a particular medical condition comes within the narrow parameters of a constitutional right to privacy that is actionable under § 1983.365 As for § 1983 and HIPAA violations, it does not appear that the courts would permit a § 1983 action against a transit agency on the basis of an alleged violation of HIPAA. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzaga University v.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.