ESCALANTE v. LifePOINT HOSPITAL

Case No. 17-2035-JWL-KGG.

RAQUEL ESCALANTE, et al., Plaintiff, v. LIFEPOINT HOSPITAL dba WESTERN PLAINS MEDICAL COMPLEX, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Medical Malpractice
Nature of Suit: 362 Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Raquel Escalante, Plaintiff, represented by Mark P. Schloegel , The Popham Law Firm, PC.

Raquel Escalante, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley R. Ausemus , Stanley R. Ausemus, Chtd. & William Dirk Vandever , The Popham Law Firm, PC.

LifePoint Hospital Inc., Defendant, represented by John H. Gibson , Gilliland & Hayes, LLC & Michelle M. Watson , Gilliland & Hayes, LLC.

Dodge City Medical Center, Chartered, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Cole , Woodard, Hernandez, Roth & Day, LLC & Steven C. Day , Woodard, Hernandez, Roth & Day, LLC.

Family Practice Associates of Western Kansas LLC, Defendant, represented by David S. Wooding , Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP & Samantha M.H. Woods , Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP.

Tanya Williams, Defendant, represented by David S. Wooding , Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP & Samantha M.H. Woods , Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP.

Samir Shaath, Defendant, represented by Brian C. Wright , Wright Law Office, Chtd..

Lynn R. Johnson, represented by Lynn R. Johnson , Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd..


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER FOR MEDICAL RECORDS

KENNETH G. GALE, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Lifepoint Hospital dba Western Plains Medical Complex (herein "Defendant" or "Western Plains") has moved for the Court to enter orders "authorizing the inspection and reproduction of plaintiffs' medical records and permitting ex parte interviews with plaintiffs' treating health care providers." (Doc. 39.) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED.

This is a medical malpractice case in which it is undisputed that the medical conditions of Plaintiff and her minor daughter (on behalf of whom she is suing) are at issue. Plaintiff objects to the motion, however, as to Defendant's requested authorization to speak to the health care providers outside the presence of Plaintiff's counsel. (See generally Doc. 41.)

Defendant's request implicates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("the Act" or "HIPAA"). The Act prohibits the unauthorized disclosure or misuse of protected health information by entities its covers. "HIPAA, however, does not prohibit all disclosures; rather, it imposes procedures on health care providers concerning the disclosure of medical information." Callahan v. Bledsoe, No. 16-2310-JAR-GLR, 2017 WL 590254, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 14, 2017) (citing Harris v. Whittington, No. 06-1179-WEB, 2007 WL 164031, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 2007)).

The Act specifically provides for the disclosure of protected health information in judicial proceedings in following instances:

(1) Permitted disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding: (i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or (ii) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal, if: (A) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance, as described in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section, from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health information that has been requested has been given notice of the request; or (B) The 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.

45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e). Thus, the Act clearly provides two separate methods for obtaining protected health information without risking the violation of its terms: (1) by court order authorizing such disclosure or (2) via formal discovery request, such as a subpoena, "when accompanied by certain required assurances and notices." Callahan, 2017 WL 590254, at 2.

The Court acknowledges that HIPAA does not expressly provide for ex parte interviews of health care providers. It does not, however, expressly prohibit the practice, either. Further, issuing orders which allow for ex parte interviews of health care providers is a well-established practice in this district. Id. (citing Paliwoda v. Showman, No. 12-2740-KGS, 2013 WL 3756591, at *1 (D. Kan. July 15, 2013); Madrid v. Williams, No. 12-1033-CM, 2012 WL 2339829 (D. Kan. June 19, 2012) (J. Humphreys); Lowen v. Via Christie Hosps. Wichita, Inc., No. 10-1201-RDR, 2010 WL 4739431 (D. Kan. Nov. 16, 2010) (J. Sebelius); Spraggins v. Sumner Reg'l Med. Ctr., No. 10-2276-WEB/KGG, 2010 WL 4568715 (D. Kan. Nov. 3, 2010) (J. Gale, the undersigned); Brigham v. Colyer, No. 09-2210-JWL-DJW, 2010 WL 2131967 (D. Kan. May 27, 2010) (J. Waxse); Pratt v. Petelin, No. 09-2252-CM-GLR, 2010 WL 446474 (D. Kan. Feb. 4, 2010) (J. Rushfelt); Sample v. Zancanelli Mgmt. Corp., No. 07-2021-JPO, 2008 WL 508726 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2008) (J. O'Hara); Bohannon v. Baker, No. 06-1033-MLB, 2006 WL 2927521 (D. Kan. Oct. 12, 2006) (J. Bostwick))

Plaintiff recognizes that Courts in this District routinely grant these motions. (Doc. 41, at 1.) Plaintiff, however, "presents . . . arguments and authorities to preserve this issue for appeal and to discuss a movement in Kansas state courts denying similar motions . . . ." (Id.) While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff's arguments and cited state court authorities, the overwhelming balance of authority in this District allows for the type of order and interviews Defendant requests. As such, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Order for Medical Records (Doc. 39) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases