There’s been an interesting update to HHS’s breach tool for the entry concerning a breach reported by Dr. David DiGiallorenzo of the LANAP & Implant Center in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
I had first noted the breach in December 2013, and then provided an update here. When the breach was added to HHS’s breach tool, I noted the addition and commented on the errors in what had been reported to HHS:
The LANAP & Implant Center breach reported here and here was reported by David DiGiallorenzo, D.M.D. as occurring on September 17, 2012. That seems incorrect as the torrent was uploaded to a PirateBay site on February 18, 2010. Perhaps Dr. DiGiallorenzo confused date of discovery with date of breach? I’d ask them, but their lawyer has already said they’d have no further comment on the breach. Surprisingly, Dr DiGiallorenzo seems to have reported that (only) 2,600 patients were affected by the breach. Inspection of the torrent reveals that over 11,000 individuals had PII and/or PHI in the database exposed online, so I’m really not sure how they got that number to report. The incident was reported as “Unauthorized Access/Disclosure,Hacking Incident”,”Network Server, Electronic Medical Record,” and hopefully, HHS will confirm whether this really was a hack by a third party.
At the time, I contacted HHS about the errors in what appeared on the breach tool, and raised a number of concerns with both HHS and the FTC concerning the incomplete and/or inaccurate disclosures to patients as well as the alleged retaliation experienced by the individual who brought the breach to the media’s attention.
On September 4, HHS updated the public breach tool entry to read:
“David DiGiallorenzo, D.M.D.”, PA,””, 11000, 02/18/2010,”Unauthorized Access/Disclosure, Hacking/IT Incident”, Other, 09/04/2014,
So HHS has now corrected the entry to show the correct number of patients affected and the correct date of the incident. Also, the entry no longer indicates “Hacking Incident,” but rather “Hacking/IT incident.” “Network Server, Electronic Medical Record” has been replaced by “Other.” I wish I knew what the “Other” stands for in this case, and I’m curious as to what OCR will find in its investigation.
Because there is no summary provided in their logs, it would appear that their investigation is still open. Seeing how OCR investigations into breaches reported in 2011 are first being closed now, I expect it will be a while before we see this investigation closed.