Hall v. Van Winkler

2009 DNH 023

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 6, 2009
• Docket: CV-07-243-JL
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hall v . Van Winkler CV-07-243-JL 3/6/09 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Hall

v. Civil N o . 07-cv-343-JL Opinion N o . 2009 DNH 023 Richard Van Winkler

O R D E R

Defendant Richard Van Winkler, the Superintendent of the

Cheshire County House of Corrections, has moved to dismiss, and

also moved for summary judgment o n , plaintiff Kevin D. Hall’s pro

se complaint that his constitutional right to privacy was

violated by alleged deficiencies in the jail’s system for

maintaining inmate medical records. The Magistrate Judge

identified this claim based on Hall’s allegations that, when his

medical records were delivered to a prosecutor investigating

charges against him for vandalizing the jail (causing injury to

himself), the records were found to contain the mis-filed records

of other inmates. Rept. & Rec. at 3-4. Hall alleged “that this

mix-up revealed that the [jail] was allowing all of the [jail’s]

inmates’ medical records to be kept mixed together in a box in an

unsecured location,” exposing his own medical records to access

by “a variety of unauthorized people.” Id.

It is a difficult question whether this allegation, if true,

would establish a potential violation of Hall’s constitutional right to privacy. Compare Whalen v . Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 600-01

(1977) (suggesting that state officials could violate patients’

constitutional right to privacy “by failing, either deliberately

or negligently, to maintain proper security” over records of

their prescriptions); Faison v . Parker, 823 F. Supp. 1198, 1204-

05 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (considering, but rejecting, similar claim as

to medical records contained in a pre-sentence report); Laurence

H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 15-16, at 1399 (2d ed.

1988) (opining that “individuals should be able to challenge the

overall sufficiency of the safeguards provided” by the state for

its “processing information about individuals”) (footnote

omitted) with Vega-Rodriguez v . P.R. Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174, 183

(1st Cir. 1997) (“Even if the right of confidentiality has a

range broader than that associated with the right to autonomy,

that range has not extended beyond prohibiting profligate

disclosure of medical . . . data.”) (citation omitted).

This court need not reach the question, however, because the

allegation is false, as demonstrated by Van Winkler’s testimony

in his affidavit that inmate medical records at the jail have at

relevant times been filed alphabetically by inmate in cabinets in

a locked section of the jail’s medical offices accessible only by

medical personnel. Moreover, Winkler states, none of Hall’s

records was ever mis-filed with those of another inmate so as to

2 risk its exposure to unauthorized persons. Hall has not disputed

this testimony o r , indeed, even objected to Van Winkler’s summary

judgment motion, making Van Winkler’s account the official

version of events. See L.R. 7.2(b)(2). S o , assuming, for this

case only, that the state has a constitutional duty to maintain

proper security over medical information that it compiles, it

discharged that duty here. See Faison, 823 F. Supp. at 1205.

The court therefore GRANTS Van Winkler’s motion for summary

judgment (document n o . 26) because the claimed constitutional

violation did not occur. The court does not reach any of Van

Winkler’s other arguments in support of the motion. Van

Winkler’s motion to dismiss (document n o . 13) and Hall’s request

to preserve evidence, to wit, the jail itself (document n o . 31)

are DENIED as moot. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly

and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

_____________ ___ Joseph N. Laplante United States District Judge

Dated: March 6, 2009

cc: Kevin D. Hall, pro se John A . Curran, Esq.