HIPAA Authorization by Defendent to Receive Dental Records from Dentist's Attorney

[knowcents]

My question involves small claims court in the state of: Connecticut

Being sued by an attorney for an unpaid dental bill who alledges to be working directly for the dentist. At the time of suit, I asked the dentist's office manager if they owned the debt, she reluctantly informed me they didn't - it was sold to an outside party. Part of the bill was for a root canal which had become reinfected 2 1/2 to 3 years later - so we filed a counter-claim for set-off as the cost to repair exceeded the amount of the suit. Over 2 months ago we requested various documents in writing from the Plaintiff's attorney including our dental records. Plaintiff's attorney now informs us they can not provide medical information without a HIPAA authorization signed by us. My questions are:

1. If the attorney is truly representing the original healthcare provider do they need a HIPAA authorization signed by me to provide me with my own records?

2. If they are representing a third-party debt buyer and concealing that fact by suing in the name of the original Dentist how due I compel the attorney to disclose the true party with respect to issues of standing? Assuming the debt was purchased at a discount how would that affect the amount of damages being sought?

3. Can I file a motion to compel to receive the requested information? How would I incorporate the HIPAA issues into a motion?

[jk]

Not sure why you would expect the lawyer to have your dental records.

No, they do not need a HIPAA release to send your own records to you.

suing in the name of the original Dentist

explain that. Without disclosing any actual names, just who is listed as the plaintiff in the suit?

[cmre3456]

Not sure why you would expect the lawyer to have your dental records.

No, they do not need a HIPAA release to send your own records to you.


explain that. Without disclosing any actual names, just who is listed as the plaintiff in the suit?

I love your sig line.

[knowcents]

The plaintiff is listed as the dentist on the suit. After I was served the suit, I called the billing manager at the dentist's office and she informed me they no longer owned the debt - it was sold to a third party collection firm. A law firm is handling the suit for the "plaintiff" - they sent me a request for production of documents relating to my counterclaim. I returned the favor by sending the plaintiff's lawyer a request for production of documents including my dental records. The lawyer at the firm has responded by saying "I can't get your information from the dentist without a HIPAA authorization signed by you." My reading of HIPAA is they don't need an authorization from me if their client is the dentist named as plaintiff in the suit. If their client is actually a third party purchaser of the debt then, yes, they would need a HIPAA authorization. Basically I need to know if I can say to their lawyer: "Sorry, but you named the dentist as the the plaintiff - so either get the information without my signed HIPAA authorization or explain to the judge why you can't".

In my simple and naive view of the world, I would like to know exactly "who" is suing me and what their "damages" are. If the plaintiff is not the dentist, then I would like to know who it is and whether they have standing to sue and if they bought the debt at a discount, if that's the case, what their "damages" in equity really are.

My 3 questions are:

1. Assuming the debt is owned by a third-party (XYZ Co.) and was purchased at a discount (say $200 for a $1,000 unpaid balance) from the original service provider (ABC Dentist): How would the court view the lawsuit if I was able to demonstrate that, no, ABC Dentist (the named "plaintiff") no longer owns the debt - it is actually owned by XYZ Co., and in order to prove standing, XYZ Co. will need to show some accounting record of purchase which would show $200 not $1,000. In this scenario, what are the damages in "equity" - $200 or $1,000?

2. Does an attorney, who is actually representing a dentist as plaintiff in the context of litigation over an unpaid bill, need to have a signed HIPAA authorization in order to comply and produce a Defendant's request for his own medical records?

3. If the attorney doesn't need a signed HIPAA authorization, how would I craft a "motion to compel" to force the attorney to produce the requested information or admit the dentist is not the "real" client?

[cmre3456]

My 3 questions are:

1. Assuming the debt is owned by a third-party (XYZ Co.) and was purchased at a discount (say $200 for a $1,000 unpaid balance) from the original service provider (ABC Dentist): How would the court view the lawsuit if I was able to demonstrate that, no, ABC Dentist (the named "plaintiff") no longer owns the debt - it is actually owned by XYZ Co., and in order to prove standing, XYZ Co. will need to show some accounting record of purchase which would show $200 not $1,000. In this scenario, what are the damages in "equity" - $200 or $1,000?

We don't know for sure if the dentist outright sold the debt, or turned it over for collection. If it was filed in the name of the dentist, my first wild guess would be the latter.

2. Does an attorney, who is actually representing a dentist as plaintiff in the context of litigation over an unpaid bill, need to have a signed HIPAA authorization in order to comply and produce a Defendant's request for his own medical records?

I don't get this part. Is there a reason you don't simply get the records from the dentist yourself? If uncooperative, you can subpoena them. You avoid any Hipaa bluffs that way.

3. If the attorney doesn't need a signed HIPAA authorization, how would I craft a "motion to compel" to force the attorney to produce the requested information or admit the dentist is not the "real" client?

See above.

As for the value of the debt, a debt of $1,000 sold for $200 is still $1,000. Why would I buy a "bad" debt of $1,000 unless I were willing to gamble I could make a profit trying to collect it? That's how it's done. The dentist sells it for $200 to get it off the books, and a collector buys it gambling he might make $800 on it. He might not too unless he collects. He might lose the $200. That's his business model.

[jk]

If the suit is in the name of the dentist, it is the dentist suing you. The lawyer would merely be representing the dentist. Why you get told what you do at the dentist is confusing. If you can get the dentist to sign an affidavit stating they no longer own the debt, it could be used to quash this particular suit since the owner of the debt is not who is suing you.

"I can't get your information from the dentist without a HIPAA authorization signed by you."

this is different than what you said before. The lawyer is correct. He cannot get your records without you signing a HIPAA release at the dentist's office.

Basically I need to know if I can say to their lawyer: "Sorry, but you named the dentist as the the plaintiff - so either get the information without my signed HIPAA authorization or explain to the judge why you can't".

You can say it but it won't do any good unless you make that argument as a defense and do so properly.

[cmre3456]

Others are correct about who the plaintiff is vs who owns the debt and who has standing to sue. It's worth investigating.

As for your records, even if the Dentist sold the debt, he still has your records and you have a right to request a complete copy of your records. You might have to subpoena them in this case, but they are your records.

Also, let's not read too much into HIPAA. It has a lot of exceptions. I once got a judge to order a plaintiff to produce his mental health records from a psychiatrist. The judge would have reviewed the records himself and given me only what was relevant, but I got what I needed in the court order and it won me the case. I won it because the plaintiff made a motion for dismissal with prejudice rather than to produce those records.

"Does the information fall under an exception? Under HIPAA, a covered entity can disclose PHI without an individual’s written authorization in specific circumstances: When complying with a court order, subpoena, or summons; when responding to an administrative subpoena, investigative demand, or other administrative request; for a proceeding before a health oversight agency; and for law enforcement purposes..."

ABA