On a daily basis, we read about new apps or devices that may create, store, and transmit electronically stored information (ESI) relevant to the health of an individual. Healthcare providers may be required to reach out to those entities and produce ESI in response to a legal adversary’s discovery requests.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled on a class action suit alleging the plaintiff’s biometric information collection practices violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. What might this mean for healthcare providers or other entities that collect biometric information?
The first Legal eSoeaking post of 2019 takes a look at a recent decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that addresses the question of “whether an employer has a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information that the employer stores on an internet-accessible system.” This decision offers a classic example of how the common law (judge-made law) can be used to establish rights and remedies to economic injuries allegedly caused by new technologies.
When the defendant in a recent court case had to admit “it bollixed its litigation hold… to a staggering degree” regarding electronically stored information, the judge determined that there was “little question” that sanctions were warranted, as “such irresponsibility with regard to discovery cannot be countenanced.”
I have discussed the importance of preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) in multiple Legal e-Speaking posts, as well as the potential consequences of not doing so. A recent court decision, Small v. University Medical Center, offers an example of both the importance of preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) and the potential consequences of not doing so.
A recent study revealed a continuous increase in medical malpractice claims related to electronic health records over a ten-year period.