[ Friday, July 27, 2018 ]


We're definitely seeing more of these types of cases.  I'm not sure what happened in the Kalina case (the indictment just says she disclosed the PHI with intent to cause "malicious harm," but doesn't say what the harm is.  Usually, if the number of affected individuals is large, it's for ID theft of some sort; if it's small, it's usually targeted snooping, such as an ex-lover or family member; if it's in between (like this case, a little over 100 files), it's either generalized snooping (bad but not necessarily malicious) or for barratry (ambulance chasing, more annoying -- and illegal or unethical for the lawyer -- than malicious).

Jeff [12:05 PM]

Comments: Post a Comment
http://www.blogger.com/template-edit.g?blogID=3380636 Blogger: HIPAA Blog - Edit your Template