LEGAL UPDATE: ALG Founder David Almeida Appointed Co-Lead Interim Counsel in CityMD Class Action Lawsuit
Legal update
LEGAL UPDATE: ALG Founder David Almeida Appointed Co-Lead Interim Counsel in CityMD Class Action Lawsuit
Court Denies Prime Healthcare’s Motion to Dismiss in Patient Privacy Class Action
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9b2ec/9b2ecc26b041464b3970f1b14a327c8798c021ec" alt="Almeida Law Group healthcare whistleblowers | Almeida Law Group | Almeida Law Group Almeida Law Group healthcare whistleblowers"
Overview
On January 13, 2025, a federal judge denied Prime Healthcare’s motion to dismiss a class action alleging it used website tracking tools to share patients’ protected health information without consent, violating the ECPA. The court found the plaintiff plausibly claimed intentional HIPAA violations, allowing the case to proceed.
Motion to Dismiss Denied
We are pleased to report that, on January 13, 2025, Judge Otis D. Wright II of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and denied Prime Healthcare Services, Inc.’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action lawsuit.
The case, captioned R.S. v. Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00330, involves allegations that Prime Healthcare used tracking technologies on its website to intercept and disclose patients’ protected health information to third parties without consent in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge Wright held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Prime Healthcare’s interception and disclosure of private information was done with the intent to violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) thereby triggering the ECPA’s crime-tort exception to its one-party consent rule. The Court rejected Prime Healthcare’s argument that its financial motivations shielded it from liability, noting that “legitimate objectives, like increasing revenue, do not shield a party from liability for crimes or torts committed in the process.”
The Court’s decision allows this important case to proceed to the discovery process. Our Firm remains committed to protecting privacy rights and holding companies accountable for the unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal information.