Another State supreme court has weighed in on whether an individual may sue for damages based on a healthcare provider’s “unjustified disclosure to third persons of information obtained during treatment.”
A recent court case regarding loss of electronically stored information (ESI) offers a reminder of the importance of understanding the nature and location of ESI relevant to a particular litigation. In the case, an employment discrimination action, the plaintiffs sought sanctions against the defendant for its failure to preserve a computer one plaintiff had used in the course of her employment which had been supplied by the defendant.
A recent court decision points to a valuable lesson for HIM professionals working on discovery—your attorney might be able to argue that the cost of compiling significant volumes of electronically stored information should be shifted either completely or in part to the requesting party.
“Remedial measures,” also known as “sanctions,” can be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) when electronically stored information is lost. The word “lost” has a specialized meaning in this context
In response to the increasing issue of data breaches, a number of proposals for legislation related to breaches and personal privacy have been made at both the federal and state levels.
When might a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action want a defendant healthcare provider to produce an electronic audit trail, and what proofs might be offered in favor of and against production? A recent case, Vargas v. Lee, suggests some answers.