DataBreaches.Net

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

University of Rochester Medical Center notifies patients of misplaced USB drive

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Dissent

The University of Rochester Medical Center has sent letters to a group of former orthopaedic patients, alerting them to the loss of protected health information.

Earlier this week, URMC notified 537 patients that a resident physician misplaced a USB computer flash drive that carried protected health information. The flash drive was used to transport information used to study and continuously improve surgical results. The information was copied from other files and so its loss will not affect follow-up care for any patients.

The flash drive included the patients’ names, gender, age, date of birth, weight, telephone number, medical record number (a number internal to URMC), orthopaedic physician’s name, date of service, diagnosis, diagnostic study, procedure, and complications, if any. No address, social security number or insurance information of any patient was included.

The flash drive is believed to have been lost at a URMC outpatient orthopaedic facility. After an exhaustive but unproductive search, hospital leaders believe that the drive likely was destroyed in the laundry. A search of the laundry service, which works exclusively with hospital/medical facilities, also failed to locate the drive.

Affected patients are being given phone numbers to call for further information. In addition, URMC is re-educating faculty and staff about its policy that requires the use of encrypted drives when transporting protected health information on flash drives. Over the past year, URMC also has developed new rules for the use of smart phones, iPads and other mobile devices to safeguard protected health information. In addition, URMC encourages its physicians and staff to access sensitive patient information using its secure network rather than transfer information on portable devices.

Source: URMC

PHIprivacy.net contacted URMC and learned that the drive was the personal property of the resident and had not been issued by URMC.  According to a spokesperson, the resident was authorized to download the information, but they did not know he was downloading it onto an unencrypted drive.

Of course,  this raises the question of whether others could be downloading information onto devices for unacceptable uses, such as sale to co-conspirators for a tax refund fraud scheme. Hopefully, URMC has security measures in place that prevent downloading (or even display) of certain types of patient information except to those who genuinely have a need to access the data.


Related:

  • Russian hackers target IVF clinics across UK used by thousands of couples
  • Large medical lab in South Africa suffers multiple data breaches
  • From bad to worse: Doctor Alliance hacked again by same threat actor (2)
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says
  • NHS providers reviewing stolen Synnovis data published by cyber criminals
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Lessons from EDRM/FERC/Enron Data Privacy Breaches (updated)
Even if you terminate access, disgruntled ex-employees may still find a way to hurt you →

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

  • Teen who allegedly stole millions of personal data records arrested in Spain
  • Akira ransomware: FBI tallies 250 million in payouts
  • IE: HSE confirms second ransomware attack but ‘no evidence’ patient data was stolen
  • Examining impact of federal relief program after major healthcare cyberattack — Research Brief
  • Justice Department Announces Actions to Combat Two Russian State-Sponsored Hacking Groups
  • Should entities be required to disclose the name of a vendor if the breach was at the vendor’s?
  • The Hidden Risks of Information Disclosure: A Costly Lesson from Cornwall
  • Defense Bill Would Require New Cyber Requirements for Some DoD Telecom Contracts
  • Tell the truth, or someone will tell it for you — Trumbull County, Ohio edition (1)
  • US Posts $10 Million Bounty for Iranian Hackers

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

  • U.S. Plans to Scrutinize Foreign Tourists’ Social Media History
  • ANNOUNCEMENT: EFF Launches Age Verification Hub as Resource Against Misguided Laws
  • FTC Denies Petition from SpyFone App CEO to Vacate 2021 Order
  • Privacy concerns raised as Grok AI found to be a stalker’s best friend
  • PRIVACY—S.D. Cal.: Employee did not waive privacy right in personal email data on company provided laptop, (Dec 5, 2025)

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.