From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acara v. Banks

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 13, 2006
470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006)

Summary

holding that "there is no private right of action under HIPAA"

Summary of this case from McNary v. Corr. Corp. of Am.

Opinion

No. 06-30356 Summary Calendar.

November 13, 2006.

Mary Grace Knapp, Mandeville, LA, for Acara.

Linda G. Rodrigue, Jennifer Jones Thomas, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Banks.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Margaret Acara ("Acara") filed suit against Appellee Dr. Bradley Banks ("Dr. Banks") in Louisiana district court for disclosing her medical information during a deposition without her consent. Acara's complaint claimed subject matter jurisdiction based entirely upon an alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), Pub.L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996) (codified primarily in Titles 18, 26 and 42 of the United States Code). Acara later sought leave to amend her complaint to change her residency from Louisiana to New York in order to establish diversity jurisdiction. The district court held that HIPAA does not give rise to a private cause of action, and therefore no subject matter jurisdiction existed. In addition, the district court denied Acara's motion to amend her complaint to allege diversity jurisdiction after a magistrate judge determined Acara to be a resident of Louisiana. Therefore, the district court granted Dr. Bank's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), or alternatively Rule 12(b)(6). This timely appeal followed. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

1. Private Right of Action Under HIPAA.

Whether or not HIPAA provides for a private cause of action is a question of statutory interpretation subject to de novo review. In re ADM/Growmark River Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 881, 886 (5th Cir.2000). HIPAA generally provides for confidentiality of medical records. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d- 1 to d-7. Private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). HIPAA has no express provision creating a private cause of action, and therefore we must determine if such is implied within the statute. Banks v. Dallas Hous. Auth.,, 271 F.3d 605, 608 (5th Cir.2001). "The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy. Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative." Id. In addition, the plaintiff has the relatively heavy burden to show Congress intended private enforcement, and must overcome the presumption that Congress did not intend to create a private cause of action. Casas v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 304 F.3d 517, 521-22 (5th Cir.2002).

In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), the Supreme Court laid out a four factor analysis to determine when a federal statute gives rise to an implied private right of action. These factors include: (1) whether the plaintiff is one of a class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether there is an indication of legislative intent to create or deny such a remedy; (3) whether such a remedy would be consistent with the underlying legislative purpose; and (4) whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law. Id. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080. See also Till v. Unifirst Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 653 F.2d 152, 157 (5th Cir.1981).
Particular emphasis has been placed on the second factor and without evidence of congressional intent, a private cause of action cannot be found. Alexander, 532 U.S. at 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511. See also Casas v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 304 F.3d 517, 522 (5th Cir.2002) ("The touchstone of the Cort analysis is its second factor: Congressional intent."); Till, 653 F.2d at 157 ("In interpreting federal statutes, Cort and its progeny all focus upon the `ultimate issue' of whether it was Congress' intent to create a private remedy.").

HIPAA does not contain any express language conferring privacy rights upon a specific class of individuals. Instead, it focuses on regulating persons that have access to individually identifiable medical information and who conduct certain electronic health care transactions. 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-1. HIPAA provides both civil and criminal penalties for improper disclosures of medical information. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d- 5, d-6. However, HIPAA limits enforcement of the statute to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Id. Because HIPAA specifically delegates enforcement, there is a strong indication that Congress intended to preclude private enforcement. Alexander, 532 U.S. at 286-87, 121 S.Ct. 1511 ("The express provision of one method of enforcing [a statute] suggests Congress intended to preclude others.").

While no other circuit court has specifically addressed this issue, we are not alone in our conclusion that Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA. Every district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action. See, e.g., Agee v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 284 (2006); Walker v. Gerald, No. 05-6649, 2006 WL 1997635 (E.D.La. June 27, 2006); Poli v. Mountain Valleys Health Ctrs., Inc., No. 2.-05-2015-GEB-KJM, 2006 WL 83378 (E.D.Cal. Jan.11, 2006); Cassidy v. Nicolo, No. 03-CV-6603-CJS, 2005 WL 3334523 (W.D.N.Y. Dec.7, 2005); Johnson v. Quander, 370 F.Supp.2d 79 (D.D.C. 2005); Univ. of Colo. Hosp., 340 F.Supp.2d 1142 (D.Colo.2004); O'Donnell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyo., 173 F.Supp.2d 1176 (D.Wyo.2001); Means v. Ind. Life Accident Ins. Co., 963 F.Supp. 1131 (M.D.Ala.1997); Wright v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 959 F.Supp. 356 (N.D.Miss.1997).

Furthermore, Acara provides no authority to support her assertion that a private right of action exists under HIPAA, and her policy arguments are unpersuasive. We hold there is no private cause of action under HIPAA and therefore no federal subject matter jurisdiction over Acara's asserted claims.

2. Diversity Jurisdiction.

In this action Acara sought leave to amend her original complaint to change her residency from Louisiana to New York and thus alternatively plead diversity to satisfy subject matter jurisdiction. The question of whether or not Acara's residency had changed from Louisiana to New York was referred to a magistrate judge who later determined that Acara was a resident of Louisiana.

As long as the district court applies the correct standard of law, findings as to the state residency of the parties will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir.1996). We find no evidence that either the magistrate judge or district judge clearly erred in the determination that Acara remained a Louisiana resident. Therefore, since both the plaintiff and the defendant are residents of Louisiana, there is no diversity and this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The district court's judgment dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED. Acara is free to pursue any remaining state law claims in state court.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Acara v. Banks

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 13, 2006
470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006)

holding that "there is no private right of action under HIPAA"

Summary of this case from McNary v. Corr. Corp. of Am.

holding that there is no private cause of action under HIPAA

Summary of this case from Khalid v. Bank of Am., N.A.

holding that there is no private right of action to enforce the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or "HIPAA"

Summary of this case from Clark v. Avatar Techs. PHL, Inc.

holding that "Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA," and "[e]very district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action"

Summary of this case from Smith v. Anderson

holding that "Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA," and "[e]very district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action"

Summary of this case from Montin v. Gibson

holding that "there is no private cause of action under HIPAA"

Summary of this case from Kappel v. Housing Authority

holding "[w]hile no other circuit court has specifically addressed this issue . .. [e]very district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that [HIPAA] does not support a private right of action."

Summary of this case from Gross v. Clements

holding that "there is no private cause of action under HIPAA"

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Roseland Community Hospital

holding that there is no private right of action under HIPAA

Summary of this case from Hastings v. Sevison

Holding there is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA

Summary of this case from In re Scott

Holding there is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA

Summary of this case from In re Scott

finding no private right of legal action created by HIPAA

Summary of this case from Riffle v. Sw. Reg'l Jail Auth.

finding that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims alleging violations of HIPAA because HIPAA confers no private cause of action

Summary of this case from Ferrell v. Lavender

finding that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims alleging violations of HIPAA because HIPAA confers no private cause of action

Summary of this case from Cabotage v. Ohio Hosp. for Psychiatry, LLC

concluding that HIPAA confers no private cause of action

Summary of this case from Christensen v. United States

concluding that Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA

Summary of this case from Azehko v. Bloom

concluding Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA

Summary of this case from Payne v. CHCS

interpreting 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d–1, – 5, – 6, and employing similar reasoning

Summary of this case from Stewart v. Parkview Hosp.

stating that "we are not alone in our conclusion that Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA."

Summary of this case from Price v. Roswell Park Cancer Ins.

In Acara v. Banks, the Fifth Circuit found that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims where the plaintiff's "complaint claimed subject matter jurisdiction based entirely upon an alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act."

Summary of this case from Saldana-Fountain v. United States

explaining that "HIPAA limits enforcement of the statute to the Secretary of Health and Human Services," which demonstrates a "strong indication that Congress intended to preclude private enforcement"

Summary of this case from Saldana-Fountain v. United States

noting that "[e]very district court that has considered the issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action"

Summary of this case from Thomas v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.

noting that every district court to consider the issue has agreed that HIPAA creates no private right of action

Summary of this case from JIRI v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

agreeing with "every district court that has considered this issue . . . that [HIPAA] does not support a private right of action"

Summary of this case from Leonard v. Alcan Rolled Products-Ravenswood, Llc.

In Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571-72 (5th Cir. 2006), the Fifth Circuit held that "Congress did not intend for private enforcement of HIPAA," and "[e]very district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action."

Summary of this case from Frazier v. Arkansas Department of Correction
Case details for

Acara v. Banks

Case Details

Full title:Margaret A. ACARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bradley C. BANKS, M.D.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Nov 13, 2006

Citations

470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

Clark v. Avatar Techs. PHL, Inc.

Defendant argues that there is no private right of action for a violation of the TCIA. A private right of…

In re Maple

"HIPAA has no express provision creating a private cause of action." Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571 (5th…