File this under the I-didn’t-see-this-one-coming dept.:
Chad Terhune of the L. A. Times reports:
In an ongoing legal battle over confidential patient data, a state judge refused to grant Kaiser Permanente access to the personal computers and email account of a couple the healthcare giant hired to store nearly 300,000 hospital files.
[…]
In October, Kaiser sued the Deans, accusing them of violating their contract by not returning all of its patient information as required when Kaiser picked up the paper records. On Dec. 31, the Deans said, they deleted all of the computer information they had related to Kaiser patients.
At a hearing Thursday in Indio, Kaiser sought a preliminary injunction that would have ordered the Deans to allow a forensic consultant access to their computers and email account.
Hopp denied that request and granted a narrower preliminary injunction against the Deans, barring them from disclosing any confidential patient information.
Read more on the L.A. Times.
Ordering the Dean’s not to disclose patient information is a poor second cousin to adequately securing PHI or ensuring that it’s been properly wiped from any drives that could be stolen. I’m not sure I understand the basis for the judge’s ruling, and there’s no explanation available in the docket at this time.
It would be a good idea for you to get all the facts regarding the case. Does Kaiser have a agreement with the Deans requiring them to give them access to their property ?
The March 2011 agreement between the parties was drafted by Kaiser. This agreement clearly states it supersedes all other agreements and only required the Deans to preserve the PHI as required by the parties BAA.
Kaiser in their desparation to get the PHI destroyed is acting as if the Deans are unpredictable and in court clearly said they had no proof of that claim.
The judge clearly sees this is a dispute over a contract and not the emergency KP is trying to make it.
We strongly suggest you get a transcript of the last two hearings. As well Kaiser suit which is a joke. We have a saying be careful when you point the finger there are always three pointing back at you.
1. Not all transcripts were/are available for purchase from the court’s web site. And when what was available to me supported your version, I noted that.
2. I believe that you had previously said that the March 2011 agreement gave you the responsibility to protect PHI if it was not feasible to return it or delete it. You did not explain in your public statements to media or in e-mails to this blog why it was not feasible for you to simply delete the 600 or so e-mails back in March 2011 after signing an agreement with Kaiser.
3. When did you first file a complaint with California? Your recent comments suggest you retained the e-mails as proof for them, but did the March 2011 agreement also apply to e-mail records?
4. RE: “getting the facts:” I post the statements people provide to this blog or other media, and in some cases (not all), I can obtain court filings at my own personal expense. If you feel that the transcripts are important for me to see, feel free to e-mail me copies. But regardless of whether this is a contract dispute or not, PHI that should no longer have been in your possession after what – 2010? – was still in your possession until December 2012. And as a medical privacy blogger, I’ll point fingers at everyone involved in that disgraceful situation – including any judge who doesn’t do more to protect PHI.
The transfer agreement of July 2010 was for paper records only. The March 2011 agreement required us to preserve the PHI not return or destroy.
THE POINTING THE FINGER COMMENT WAS NOT AT YOU BUT AT kAISER !!
August 2011 filed complaint with CDPH it took them until Nov 2012 to finish the investigation.
wE WILL SEND YOU A COPY OF THE SUIT AND A COPY OF THE FIRST HEARING WITH THE JUDGE THIS WILL EXPLAIN THE POINTING THE FINGER COMMENT.
I have their complaint and your response and declaration and have actually uploaded them attached to previous blog entries on the dispute. Would appreciate the copy of the first hearing, though, and the March 2011 agreement that you have already provided to the L.A. Times, it seems. Thanks for clarifying your pointing the finger comment.