How the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Other Privacy Laws Affect Public Transportation Operations (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 49-53
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 49... ...
49 F State Privacy Laws Applicable to State and Local Agencies Some states have enacted the equivalent of the Federal Privacy Act that is discussed in Appendix A
|
From page 50... ...
50 law claims in the context of claims against health care providers, such as for invasion of privacy, express or implied breach of contract, breach of fiduciary relationship, and other claims discussed herein.524 In general, HIPAA does not preempt state causes of action for a violation of the confidentiality or privacy of medical records.525 No transit agency reported that it had been sued concerning its receipt or handling of health information on its clients. No cases were located in which a transit agency has been sued for alleged improper disclosures of a patron's health information.
|
From page 51... ...
51 lic at large or disseminated to so many people that it [became] public knowledge."541 In Cordts, the plaintiff alleged that a company hired by his employer to evaluate disability claims wrongfully disclosed to his ex-wife that he was receiving treatment for depression.
|
From page 52... ...
52 social security numbers may be personal information, but the court held that their disclosure was not "facially embarrassing and highly offensive…."556 In Doe v. Di Genova,557 involving a subpoena of the plaintiff's medical records maintained by the Veterans Administration, the court held that there is no claim for intrusion when an intrusion is reasonable under the circumstances or when an intrusion is not "serious.'" In Brundage-Bone Concrete Pumping, concerning the plaintiff's intrusion claim based on a hospital employee's divulgence of information to one of the defendant's managers, the information divulged was held not to be "highly offensive to a reasonable person."558 Finally, as stated in Grant, California law requires proof of an "intrusion into a private place, conversation or matter…in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person."559 Although the court agreed that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim, the court dismissed the claim.
|
From page 53... ...
53 2. Infliction of Emotional Distress Plaintiffs in privacy cases have claimed either negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress because of the disclosure of their health information.
|
Key Terms
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.