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

  • Oklahoma Expands its Security Breach Notification Law
  • Ransomware group Gunra claims to have exfiltrated 450 million patient records from American Hospital Dubai.
  • North Shore University Sleep Disorders Center employee charged with secretly recording patients in restrooms
  • When ransomware listings create confusion as to who the victim was
  • Rajkot civic body’s GIS website hit by cyber attack, over 400 GB data feared stolen
  • Taiwan’s BitoPro hit by NT$345 million cryptocurrency hack
  • Texas gastroenterology and surgical practice victim of ransomware attack
  • Romanian Citizen Pleads Guilty to ‘Swatting’ Numerous Members of Congress, Churches, and Former U.S. President
  • North Dakota Enacts Financial Data Security and Data Breach Notification Requirements
  • Pro-Ukraine hacker group Black Owl poses ‘major threat’ to Russia, Kaspersky says

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

  • Florida ban on kids using social media likely unconstitutional, judge rules
  • State Data Minimization Laws Spark Compliance Uncertainty
  • Supreme Court Agrees to Clarify Emergency Situations Where Police Don’t Need Warrant
  • Stewart Baker vs. Orin Kerr on “The Digital Fourth Amendment”
  • Fears Grow Over ICE’s Reach Into Schools
  • Resource: HoganLovells Asia-Pacific Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Guide 2025
  • She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down.

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.