Watson v. Stovall et al
ORDER granting 58 Motion for a HIPPA Qualified Protective Order. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on August 22, 2013. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WELTON JAMES WATSON, II
CIVIL NO. 4:12-cv-04028
SHERIFF RON STOVALL;
WILLIAM FLOYD; MARTY
BRAZELL; NADIA BROWN;
and CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
Currently before the Court is Separate Defendants Brown and Correctional Healthcare
Company’s Motion for HIPAA Qualified Protective Order. ECF No. 58. Separate Defendants
Stovall, Floyd, and Brazel did not respond, nor did Plaintiff. The Court finds the Motion is
ripe for consideration.
Separate Defendants Brown and Correctional Healthcare Company (“CHC Defendants”)
seek a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.12.
Defendants argue such an order is necessary to allow the parties in this litigation to obtain and
use protected health information pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (“HIPAA”) for the purpose of this litigation while preventing unauthorized disclosure of
said protected health information.
Pursuant to HIPAA implementing regulations an entity covered by HIPAA, without
authorization of the individual at issue in the medical records:
may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative
proceeding . . . [i]n response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process,
that is not accompanied by an order of the court or administrative tribunal, if . . . [t]he
covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this
section, from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made
by such party to secure a qualified protective order that meets the requirements of
paragraph (e)(1)(v) of this section . . .
[A] qualified protective order means, with respect to protected health information
requested under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, an order of a court or of an
administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties to the litigation or administrative
proceeding that: (A) Prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health
information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such
information was requested; and (B) Requires the return to the covered entity or
destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end
of the litigation or proceeding.
45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). CHC Defendants do not represent that Plaintiff refused to give his
authorization to the use of his medical records in this proceeding or whether Plaintiff objected
to the use of his medical records in these proceedings pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.508, 510.
The Court will presume, given the CHC Defendants filing of the instant Motion, that Plaintiff
has failed to give his consent or objected to the use of his medical records for the purpose of
this matter. Plaintiff has, however, put his medical treatment in issue in this case with his
claims relating to his alleged denial of medical care. See Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22.
Further, CHC Defendants have represented they need to submit portions of Plaintiff’s medical
records as support for their Motion for Summary Judgment, and seek the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order to protect and prevent unauthorized dissemination of Plaintiff’s protected health
information attached to such motion.
As Plaintiff has put his medical condition in issue and CHC Defendants have
represented the legitimate need to submit Plaintiff’s medical records in support of their Motion
for Summary Judgment, the Court finds good cause is shown for entry of a HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order. Accordingly, CHC Defendants’ Motion for a HIPAA Qualified Protective
Order is hereby GRANTED.
The Court notes, however, that the instant order and the
subsequent HIPAA Qualified Protective in no way limits Plaintiff’s rights to obtain, use, and
retain his own medical records as he sees fit. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.524. The HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order will be entered by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August 2013.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?