DataBreaches.Net

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

PIH sued after notifying patients of phishing attack that could have exposed their protected health information

Posted on February 22, 2020 by Dissent

On January 24, I posted a breach notification from PIH Health with a commentary on how long it took from the time of the phishing attack to notification of almost 200,000 potentially affected patients. There was nothing in their notification, however, that suggested that patients had actually had their protected health information stolen or misused. Nor was their information destroyed or corrupted. Their information was in email accounts and could have been accessed by an unauthorized individual.  From what I read, no patient had their care interrupted or even delayed.

On February 20, a potential class action lawsuit was filed against PIH.

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California with one named plaintiff, Daniela Hernandez, does not describe any actual injury or harm that Ms Hernandez suffered as a result of the breach, other than the usual claims of imminent harm, costs, etc. The complaint also includes counts under California and New Jersey laws.

The complaint was filed by the same law firm as two other class action lawsuits I recently noted and it contains some of the same claims and language that I thought were seriously exaggerated in the other complaints.

It was a poor decision on PIH’s part, I think, not to offer affected patients complimentary credit monitoring or restoration services, and I did question the timeliness of the notification, but consider the following allegations from the complaint:

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of its fiduciary duties, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will suffer injury, including but not limited to: (i) actual identity theft; (ii) the compromise, publication, and/or theft of their Private Information; (iii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft and/or unauthorized use of their Private Information; (iv) lost opportunity costs associated with effort expended and the loss of productivity addressing and attempting to mitigate the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach, including but not limited to efforts spent researching how to prevent, detect, contest, and recover from identity theft; (v) the continued risk to their Private Information, which remains in Defendant’s possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Private Information in its continued possession; (vi) future costs in terms of time, effort, and money that will be expended as result of the Data Breach for the remainder of the lives of Plaintiff and Class Members; and (vii) the diminished value of Defendant’s services they received.

I am obviously unimpressed with these lawsuits and think they are only going to drive up the cost of healthcare and cyberinsurance. Maybe the legal community needs to speak up more about firms that are filing suits like these.

Or maybe I’m missing something and these suits are an absolutely wonderful way to try to get healthcare entities to take greater precautions against hacks and ransomware attacks because they’re not motivated enough already?  Maybe, but somehow I doubt that.

Your thoughts?

Category: Breach IncidentsCommentaries and AnalysesHealth DataU.S.

Post navigation

← Endeavor Energy Resources notifies employees and dependents after employee fell prey to phishing attack
Bitcoin Whale Hacked, Losing $45 Million worth Of BTC And BCH To A SIM Swap Hacker →

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

  • Moldovan Police Arrest Suspect in €4.5M Ransomware Attack on Dutch Research Agency
  • N.W.T.’s medical record system under the microscope after 2 reported cases of snooping
  • Department of Justice says Berkeley Research Group data breach may have exposed information on diocesan sex abuse survivors
  • Masimo Manufacturing Facilities Hit by Cyberattack
  • Education giant Pearson hit by cyberattack exposing customer data
  • Star Health hacker claims sending bullets, threats to top executives: Reports
  • Nova Scotia Power hit by cyberattack, critical infrastructure targeted, no outages reported
  • Georgia hospital defeats data-tracking lawsuit
  • 60K BTC Wallets Tied to LockBit Ransomware Gang Leaked
  • UK: Legal Aid Agency hit by cyber security incident

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

  • ARC sells airline ticket records to ICE and others
  • Clothing Retailer, Todd Snyder, Inc., Settles CPPA Allegations Regarding California Consumer Privacy Act Violations
  • US Customs and Border Protection Plans to Photograph Everyone Exiting the US by Car
  • Google agrees to pay Texas $1.4 billion data privacy settlement
  • The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech
  • Florida bill requiring encryption backdoors for social media accounts has failed
  • Apple Siri Eavesdropping Payout Deadline Confirmed—How To Make A Claim

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.