AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Medical Records
A detainee claimed that two jail officials in Coffey County, Kansas, violated his constitutional rights by disclosing medical information about him that they had properly obtained. He was set to be extradited from Illinois to Kansas, and the Kansas jail requested that Illinois arrange for multiple medical examinations of him to determine whether he had suffered injuries after being tasered by U.S. Marshals. The Kansas official learned that the plaintiff had bone lesions and possibly cancer. This information was conveyed to the Coffey County Sheriff, who conveyed it to Coffey County Hospital, and then to the plaintiff's family and friends, without first obtaining his permission. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate any clearly established law, and dismissed the case. Leiser v. Moore, #17-3206, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 25284 (10th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee in a county jail
was attacked and stabbed. He claimed that his cries for help were ignored by an
unidentified guard standing 10-15 feet away. He suffered injuries including
severe nerve damage and an eye socket fracture that may lead to blindness. His
lawsuit claimed that the jail failed to create or enforce policies necessary to
protect detainees against attacks by other detainees and prisoners. The lawyer
for the defense sent the plaintiff letters demanding that he sign a release to
permit access to all his health records since his birth in 1977, including
records with no apparent relevance to the lawsuit, such as records relating to
venereal disease, AIDS and HIV, as well as allowing the disclosure of those
records to persons not involved in the attack, injuries, or resulting medical
treatment. When the plaintiff argued that the release should be limited to the
hospital at which he was treated after the attack, the defense moved the court
to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. The court then dismissed the
lawsuit with prejudice without any explanation and without waiting for a reply
from the plaintiff. It also dismissed the plaintiff's motion for appointment of
a lawyer, which had been pending for two months, as moot. Calling the dismissal
under these circumstances "a miscarriage of justice," a federal
appeals court vacated it, ordering further proceedings. Reyes v. Dart,
#14-3441, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16475 (7th Cir.).
The highest court in
New York overturned the quashing of a subpoena duces tecum that the N.Y. State
Commission of Corrections issued to a hospital demanding that it produce its
medical records regarding the care and treatment of an inmate in the custody of
New York City who subsequently died. An exception to doctor-patient privilege
was necessary for the Commission to carry out its legislated responsibilities
and powers to investigate inmate deaths through its Medical Review Board. The
disclosure of the records was also not barred by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act privacy rules. Matter of New York City Health and
Hospitals Corp., #64, 19 N.Y.3d 239, 969 N.E.2d 765 (2012).
An HIV-positive Hepatitis-B infected inmate's
claim that the disclosure of his medical records to another prisoner violated
his Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy was improperly dismissed as
frivolous. The facts alleged were sufficient, if true, to prove that the
defendants committed an intentional violation of his constitutional rights or
fostered "an atmosphere of disclosure with deliberate indifference."
Alfred v. Corr. Corp. of Am., #09-30614,2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11658 (Unpub. 5th
Cir.).
When an inmate failed to seek to obtain his
medical records until just before the deadline to designate an expert medical
witness for his medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act,
his failure to designate an expert justified staying discovery and then
granting summary judgment to the defendant. Fujita v. United States, #10-10258,
2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4218 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner served sixteen years for crimes of
forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and kidnapping for the purpose of
committing rape. He was then sent to a state hospital for possible civil
commitment. He sued state officials and psychologists for violation of his
constitutional right to privacy in connection with their disclosure of his
prison treatment records. Rejecting these claims, a federal appeals court found
that a traditional Fourth Amendment right to privacy was "fundamentally
incompatible" with the continual and close scrutiny of prisoners and their
cells required for security reasons. Prisoners have no legitimate expectation
of privacy in their prison treatment records when there is a legitimate
penological interest in access to them. Access to such records is needed to
protect other inmates and staff members from violence and communicable
diseases, and to manage rehabilitation efforts. Whatever remaining
constitutional right to privacy the prisoner may have had in his medical
records, the California state law providing for a process for the civil
commitment of sexually violent predators fell outside of it. Seaton v. Mayberg,
#05-56894, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13335 (9th Cir.).
An alleged violation of Ohio correctional rules
and regulations in informing a prisoner's mother that he had Hepatitis C did
not constitute negligence or any other viable claim for damages under Ohio
state law. The Ohio Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over any claim
concerning violation of the federal constitutional right of privacy based on
the improper disclosure of medical records. Petty v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehabilitation and Correction, Case No. 2007-07001, 2008 Ohio Misc. Lexis 206
(Oh. Ct. of Claims).
A New York prisoner failed to show that a nurse
administrator improperly disclosed his confidential medical information without
his consent and in retaliation for his past grievance concerning the alleged
failure to provide him with his prescribed medication. His past grievance had
been resolved in his favor, but an investigation of the grievance resulted in
the writing of a report that made an indirect reference to his medical
condition. That reference, the court found, did not violate his rights, because
the prisoner himself placed his medical condition at issue with his grievance.
Additionally, the prisoner failed to show that information about his medical
condition had been improperly distributed to persons outside of the grievance
process. Tatta v. State of New York, No. 503121, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4372
(A.D. 3rd Dept.).
A prisoner filed a request under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 for the release of all
documents concerning a psychological examination of him by a Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) staff psychologist. The court ruled that certain test materials,
including the test protocol and extended score report were not subject to
disclosure, based on the test publisher's objection that their disclosure would
compromise the validity of the test and reveal trade secrets. The handwritten
notes of the psychologist and other documents, such as a summary report,
however, were subject to disclosure. Ruston v. Dept. of Justice, Civil Action
No.: 06-0224, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83009 (D.D.C.).
Provisions of Virginia state Freedom of
Information Act, Va. Code Ann. Secs. 2.2-3700 to 3704, under which a prisoner
was denied access to medical records concerning his treatment in prison, did
not constitute a violation of his rights. Provisions of the statute excluding
prisoners from access to public records was supported by rational reasons and
did not deny the prisoner equal protection of law. Additionally, the prisoner
was not obstructed in his ability to pursue legal claims challenging his
medical care while incarcerated. Giarratano v. Johnson, No. 2:06CV00004, 2006
U.S. Dist. Lexis 74882 (W.D. Va.). [N/R]
A review of a prisoner's medical records during
disciplinary proceedings did not violate his privacy rights when the prisoner
put his diabetic medical condition at issue in presenting his defense to a
charge that his urinalysis had come back positive for alcohol use. Stephens v.
Chairman Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, No. 04-4344, 173 Fed. Appx. 964 (3rd
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Documents prepared by a member of a county jail
mental health services division quality assurance committee were entitled to
protection against discovery in a lawsuit brought by survivors of an arrestee
who hung himself in the county jail. The committee constituted a "peer
review body" covered by a California statutory privilege against discovery
of records of such bodies. The fact that the document had been prepared by only
one member of the committee did not alter the result. County of Los Angeles v.
Superior Court, No. B188909, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. 2006).
[N/R]
Nebraska prisoner did not have a clear right
under state law to access to his mental health records, nor a federally
protected constitutional right to such access, and therefore was not entitled
to a court order requiring correctional officials to provide him with a copy of
the records. State ex rel. Jacob v. Bohn, No. S-04-1410, 711 N.W.2d 884 (Neb.
2006). [N/R]
New York prisoner could proceed with his claim
that he suffered mental, physical, and emotional harm because a hospital
employee informed a correctional officer of his HIV positive status. Hospital
employee had an obligation under state law to inform officer that unauthorized
further disclosure was prohibited, andthere was a factual issue as to whether
it was foreseeable that the officer would subsequently disclose the prisoner's
HIV status to other non-medical personnel at the correctional facility.
Melendez v. Strong Memorial Hospital, 804 N.Y.S.2d 626 (Sup. 2005). [N/R]
New Jersey inmate could not pursue a federal
civil rights claim against prison personnel for defamation on the basis of an
allegedly false statement in his medical file that he was suicidal. Damage to
reputation alone is insufficient for a constitutional claim. Dubois v. Vargas,
No. 05-1647, 148 Fed. Appx. 111 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Inspection and copying fees imposed on a New York
prisoner by correctional authorities did not violate his right to access his
medical records when the policy imposing the fees made it clear that access
would not be denied solely on the basis of inability to pay and that inmates
had a right of access to the records. Pratt v. Goord, 799 N.Y.S.2d 611 (A.D.
3rd Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Investigations by the Washington state Department
of Corrections into alleged medical misconduct by prison medical staff were not
carried out for purposes of "law enforcement" and therefore were not
exempt from disclosure to the press and public as law enforcement investigative
records under the state's public disclosure act. Prison Legal News, Inc. v.
Department of Corrections, No. 74890-0, 115 P.3d 316 (Wash. 2005). [N/R]
Failure to allow prisoner information about
correctional officers' physical condition or medical records in connection with
disciplinary hearing against him, based on hearing officer's decision that
doing so would compromise institutional security, did not deprive him of due
process. The hearing concerned an altercation and the information the prisoner
requested concerned the details of the officers' injuries during the incident.
Withrow v. Goord, No. 03-CV-6284, 374 F. Supp. 2d 326 (W.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Release of state inmate's medical records to
Attorney General after inmate asserted a medical malpractice claim against the
state for alleged administration of incorrect medication by prison staff was
not authorized under New York state law, so inmate was entitled to an award of
$500 in damages. Davidson v. State of N.Y., 771 N.Y.S.2d 197 (A.D. 3d Dist.
2004). [N/R]
238:153 U.S.
Supreme Court adopts therapist-patient privilege protecting disclosures during
therapy sessions from compelled disclosure in court; affirms ordering of new
trial in which jury awarded $545,000 in police shooting case where jury was
told it could presume withheld therapy records would be unfavorable to officer.
Jaffee v. Allen, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996).
Bureau of
Prisons' policy restricting release of own medical records to inmates violated
Federal Privacy Act. Benavides v. Bureau of Prisons, 771 F.Supp. 426 (D.D.C.
1991); decision withdrawn after initial publication.
Inmate can sue
the State of New York for damages under state law for unauthorized access to
his medical records and unauthorized disclosure of his affliction with AIDS. V.
v. State, 566 N.Y.S.2d 987 (Ct. Cl. 1991).
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu