Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services

D. Massachusetts

Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services

DecidedJuly 19, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-11312

StatusUnknown

This text of Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services (Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services, (D. Mass. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DEMPSEY WILLIAM ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) )

v. ) C.A. No. 23-11312-PBS ) HABIT OPT CO., BCCF, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

July 19, 2023 Saris, D.J. In this action, pro se plaintiff Dempsey William Allen, a detainee confined at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”), alleges that Habit Opt Co. Health Services violated HIPAA when it shared Allen’s medical information with BCCF officials.1 Allen also claims that BCCF officials wrongfully denied his grievances concerning the alleged violations of HIPAA. Because Allen is a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) and is suing a government entity or employee, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of his complaint and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief

1The acronym “HIPAA” is short for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104–191, may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Here, Allen’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While the government may impose civil and criminal penalties on those who violate HIPAA, see 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1320d-5, 1320d-6, HIPAA does not create a private right of action. See Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed. Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Crawford v. City of Tampa, 397 Fed. App’x 621, 623 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007); Arcara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571-72 (5th Cir. 2006). In other words, it does not provide an independent basis by which a private party may bring a lawsuit against a person or entity that has violated HIPAA’s

requirements. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be terminated as moot and no filing fee is assessed. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patti B. Saris ____ PATTI B. SARIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DEMPSEY WILLIAM ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) )

v. ) C.A. No. 23-11312-PBS ) HABIT OPT CO., BCCF, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER

July 19, 2023 Saris, D.J. In this action, pro se plaintiff Dempsey William Allen, a detainee confined at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”), alleges that Habit Opt Co. Health Services violated HIPAA when it shared Allen’s medical information with BCCF officials.1 Allen also claims that BCCF officials wrongfully denied his grievances concerning the alleged violations of HIPAA. Because Allen is a prisoner within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) and is suing a government entity or employee, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of his complaint and dismiss any claims that fail to state a claim upon which relief

1The acronym “HIPAA” is short for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104–191, may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Here, Allen’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While the government may impose civil and criminal penalties on those who violate HIPAA, see 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1320d-5, 1320d-6, HIPAA does not create a private right of action. See Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed. Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Crawford v. City of Tampa, 397 Fed. App’x 621, 623 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007); Arcara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571-72 (5th Cir. 2006). In other words, it does not provide an independent basis by which a private party may bring a lawsuit against a person or entity that has violated HIPAA’s

requirements. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis shall be terminated as moot and no filing fee is assessed. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patti B. Saris ____ PATTI B. SARIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Allen v. Habit Opt Co Health Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-habit-opt-co-health-services-mad-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack