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.

Related posts:

  • HIPAA Security Rule Facility Access Controls – What are they and how do you implement them?
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

  • McDonald’s McHire leak involving ‘123456’ admin password exposes 64 million applicant chat records
  • Qilin claims attack on Accu Reference Medical Laboratory. It wasn’t the lab’s first data breach.
  • Louis Vuitton hit by data breach in Türkiye, over 140,000 users exposed; UK customers also affected (1)
  • Infosys McCamish Systems Enters Consent Order with Vermont DFR Over Cyber Incident
  • Obligations under Canada’s data breach notification law
  • German court offers EUR 5000 compensation for data breaches caused by Meta
  • Air Force Employee Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Disclose Unlawfully Classified National Defense Information
  • UK police arrest four in connection with M&S, Co-op and Harrods cyberattacks (1)
  • At U.S. request, France jails Russian basketball player Daniil Kasatkin on suspicion of ransomware conspiracy
  • Avantic Medical Lab hacked; patient data leaked by Everest Group

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

  • DeleteMyInfo Wins 2025 Digital Privacy Excellence Award from Internet Safety Council
  • TikTok Loses First Appeal Against £12.7M ICO Fine, Faces Second Investigation by DPC
  • German court offers EUR 5000 compensation for data breaches caused by Meta
  • How to Build on Washington’s “My Health, My Data” Act
  • Department of Justice Subpoenas Doctors and Clinics Involved in Performing Transgender Medical Procedures on Children
  • Google Settles Privacy Class Action Over Period Tracking App
  • ICE Is Searching a Massive Insurance and Medical Bill Database to Find Deportation Targets

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.