DataBreaches.Net

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

Lahey Clinic Hospital settles OCR charges stemming from theft of laptop used with CT scanner

Posted on November 24, 2015 by Dissent

Hot off the presses: there’s been another settlement announced by OCR. This one involves Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (Lahey Clinic Hospital), who have agreed to pay $850,000 and to adopt a robust corrective action plan to correct deficiencies in its HIPAA compliance program.

Lahey is a nonprofit teaching hospital affiliated with Tufts Medical School, providing primary and specialty care in Burlington, Massachusetts. The incident involved the theft of a laptop with 599 patients’ protected health information.  Although there is no press release issued yet, according to the Resolution Agreement, Lahey notified HHS in October, 2011 that the unencrypted laptop was used in connection with a computerized tomography (“CT”) scanner. The laptop was reportedly stolen from an unlocked treatment room off of the inner corridor of Lahey’s Radiology Department.

In investigating the incident, OCR found that

  • Lahey failed to conduct an accurate and thorough analysis of the potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its ePHI as part of its security management process. See 45 C.F.R. §164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A).
  • Lahey failed to implement reasonable and appropriate physical safeguards for a workstation that accesses ePHI to restrict access to authorized users. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.310(c).
  • With respect to the workstation, Lahey failed to implement policies and procedures that govern the receipt and removal of hardware and electronic media that contain ePHI into and out of its facility, and the movement of these items within its facility. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.310(d)(1).
  • Lahey failed to assign a unique user name for identifying and tracking user identity with respect to the aforementioned workstation. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(a)(2)(i).
  • Lahey did not implement a mechanism to record and examine activity on the workstation at issue in this breach. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b).
  • Lahey impermissibly disclosed the ePHI of 599 individuals for a purpose not permitted by the Privacy Rule. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.502(a).

In addition to the $850,000 fee, Lahey has agreed, without any admissions or concessions, to a multi-element corrective action program, detailed in the Resolution Agreement.

Category: Health DataOf NoteTheftU.S.

Post navigation

← Fifth arrest in TalkTalk breach as 18-year-old from Wales held on suspicion of blackmail
Anthem Fires Back at Data Breach Suit →

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

  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems
  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”
  • India: Servers of two city hospitals hacked; police register FIR
  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack

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

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

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.