DataBreaches.Net

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

Advanced Data Processing/Intermedix sued over 2012 insider breach

Posted on August 6, 2015 by Dissent

Remember the Advanced Data Processing/Intermedix insider breach of 2012 where a rogue employee provided ambulance patient identity information to others involved in a tax refund fraud scheme? I had covered it on PHIprivacy.net (cf here and here for just two of the posts) and also on this site (cf, this post). In reporting on the breach, one of the things I noted was that although the breach was first disclosed in November 2012, some people were first being notified months and even years later.  The most recent batch of notifications stemming from the breach appear to relate to Philadelphia EMS patients, According to media coverage, ADPI first notified Philadelphia in February, 2015 and it took until mid-April for the city to notify its affected residents. But why did it take so long for ADPI to determine that Philadelphia patients were impacted or to notify the city?

Yehonatan Weinberg, a Philadelphia resident who used the ambulance service during the critical period in 2012 and who subsequently became a victim of tax refund fraud, has now sued ADPI and Intermedix over the breach. The complaint, which uses HIPAA and NIST standards to argue what Intermedix should have (but allegedly didn’t) do, alleges negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and restitution/unjust enrichment.

In its early notification letters, ADPI/Intermedix offered a year of free credit monitoring services with Experian ProtectMyID. But what happened to people who became identity theft/fraud victims before Intermedix ever notified them? Did Intermedix then offer them identity theft restoration services? Intermedix has not responded to an email inquiry sent this afternoon. This post will be updated if they respond.

On August 5, one day after the complaint was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Beth Bloom denied the motion for class certification as premature. As her order explains, the plaintiff’s fear that class certification might be mooted by a “buy off” offer from the defendant does not apply in the Eleventh Circuit as long as theplaintiff has not failed to diligently pursue class certification. The motion was denied without prejudice.

Elsewhere, and according to HHS’s public breach tool, HHS’s investigation into the breach appears still open.

Because FTC generally does not make its investigations public, it is not known whether they, too, may be investigating ADPI over this breach.

 

 

Related posts:

  • How many were affected by ADPI-Intermedix breach: help track this breach
  • IRS’s Top 10 Identity Theft Prosecutions
  • The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax
  • Ninth months later, almost 860 Indiana residents are first being notified of the ADPI breach.
Category: Business SectorHealth DataID TheftInsiderOf NoteSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← VA: Teacher’s file contains personal info on others
NZ: Email outs vulnerable students →

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

  • 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
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit

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.