Filed Date: Nov. 4, 2011
Closed Date: Jan. 18, 2012
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about Missouri Protection and Advocacy agency’s access authority, specifically the applicability of HIPAA to P&A records access.
The lawsuit began when plaintiff, Missouri Protection and Advocacy Services, received a complaint that Jane Doe, a resident at Sunrise Senior Living Management, had been the victim of abuse and neglect. After the death of Jane Doe, plaintiff requested records from Doe's primary physician, specifically relating to hospice care and her diagnoses. Defendant's attorneys refused to provide the requested documents absent a court order. In response to the refusal, on November 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc. Plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI Act) when it refused to provide documents related to the death of a former Sunrise resident with a mental illness. Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief to gain access to the requested records and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. Judge E. Richard Webber presided over this matter.
On January 4, 2012, defendant filed a Motion for a HIPAA Qualified Protective Order. Plaintiff filed its response on January 11, 2012, with three main claims. First, plaintiff asserted that HIPAA did not conflict with and is not applicable to plaintiff's access rights under the PAIMI Act because HIPAA regulations allow providers to disclose PHI if disclosure is required by law. Further, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a bulletin stating that the PAIMI Act does not conflict with HIPAA. Second, there was no legal guardian, conservator, or representative to authorize disclosure under the PAIMI Act. Because guardianships and conservatorships terminate at death under Missouri law, Jane Doe no longer had a guardian to authorize disclosure under the PAIMI Act. Third, a protective order is not necessary because plaintiff was bound by its own confidentiality requirements.
On January 18, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The reasons for the dismissal are unknown at this time. All claims were dismissed.
Summary Authors
NDRN (7/5/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12919642/parties/missouri-protection-and-advocacy-services-inc-v-sunrise-senior-living/
Webber, E. Richard (Missouri)
Grossmann, Matthew L. (Missouri)
Dugan, Timothy P. (Missouri)
Mellow, Mary Anne (Missouri)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12919642/missouri-protection-and-advocacy-services-inc-v-sunrise-senior-living/
Last updated April 28, 2024, 3:08 a.m.
State / Territory: Missouri
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 4, 2011
Closing Date: Jan. 18, 2012
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Missouri P&A
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Sunrise Living Management Inc., Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 10801
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
Disability and Disability Rights: