DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

When – if ever – is notification delayed, notification denied?

Posted on March 1, 2013 by Dissent

Most people I know want law enforcement to investigate some breaches and realize that, sometimes, that results delaying notification of those affected by a breach. But when does delay in notification become unreasonable or too long?

Charles Sweeney reports that Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York delayed notification from November 2011 – when it determined there was improper access to a patient’s file – until now because of a sheriff’s investigation.  In this case, an employee of Rensselaer County Jail seemingly exceeded her authorized access to the hospital’s database.  The hospital reportedly did not notify HHS of the breach at the time on the advice of their legal counsel.

So… is there ever a point where if an investigation is taking time, patients should still be notified?  Isn’t the point of notification to protect and help the patient whose PHI has been breached and who may be at risk of harm or adverse consequences as a result of a breach?  One might think that if a breach is serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation, it may also be serious enough to impact the patient. If so, is notification delayed, notification denied?

HITECH requires covered entities to notify individuals within 60 days, except that there is an exemption for law enforcement investigations:

Section 164.412(a), which is based on the requirements of 45 CFR 164.528(a)(2)(i) of the Privacy Rule, provides for a temporary delay of notification in situations in which a law enforcement official provides a statement in writing that the delay is necessary because notification would impede a criminal investigation or cause damage to national security, and specifies the time for which a delay is required. In these instances, the covered entity is required to delay the notification, notice, or posting for the time period specified by the official.

From the wording, the intent was to allow a temporary delay. Fourteen months is not a temporary delay, and yet I can find nothing in HITECH that sets an absolute limit.

I do not know why the hospital didn’t notify HHS of the breach. I do not know why the sheriff’s office took 14 months to investigate or whether any charges have been or will be filed.  All I know is that a 14-month delay in notification doesn’t strike me as acceptable.

Related posts:

  • Did Samaritan Hospital violate HIPAA?
  • Breach notifications needed to be made faster in 2024. Instead, they were made more slowly.
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← South Miami Hospital employee stole patients' info for tax refund fraud scheme
SCDOR wins one in court →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.