DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

When – if ever – is notification delayed, notification denied?

Posted on March 1, 2013 by Dissent

Most people I know want law enforcement to investigate some breaches and realize that, sometimes, that results delaying notification of those affected by a breach. But when does delay in notification become unreasonable or too long?

Charles Sweeney reports that Samaritan Hospital in Troy, New York delayed notification from November 2011 – when it determined there was improper access to a patient’s file – until now because of a sheriff’s investigation.  In this case, an employee of Rensselaer County Jail seemingly exceeded her authorized access to the hospital’s database.  The hospital reportedly did not notify HHS of the breach at the time on the advice of their legal counsel.

So… is there ever a point where if an investigation is taking time, patients should still be notified?  Isn’t the point of notification to protect and help the patient whose PHI has been breached and who may be at risk of harm or adverse consequences as a result of a breach?  One might think that if a breach is serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation, it may also be serious enough to impact the patient. If so, is notification delayed, notification denied?

HITECH requires covered entities to notify individuals within 60 days, except that there is an exemption for law enforcement investigations:

Section 164.412(a), which is based on the requirements of 45 CFR 164.528(a)(2)(i) of the Privacy Rule, provides for a temporary delay of notification in situations in which a law enforcement official provides a statement in writing that the delay is necessary because notification would impede a criminal investigation or cause damage to national security, and specifies the time for which a delay is required. In these instances, the covered entity is required to delay the notification, notice, or posting for the time period specified by the official.

From the wording, the intent was to allow a temporary delay. Fourteen months is not a temporary delay, and yet I can find nothing in HITECH that sets an absolute limit.

I do not know why the hospital didn’t notify HHS of the breach. I do not know why the sheriff’s office took 14 months to investigate or whether any charges have been or will be filed.  All I know is that a 14-month delay in notification doesn’t strike me as acceptable.


Related:

  • Safaricom-Backed M-TIBA Victim of a Possible Data Breach Affecting Millions of Kenyans
  • Another plastic surgery practice fell prey to a cyberattack that acquired patient photos and info
  • Two U.K. teenagers appear in court over Transport of London cyber attack
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • Massachusetts hospitals Heywood, Athol say outage was a cybersecurity incident
Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← South Miami Hospital employee stole patients' info for tax refund fraud scheme
SCDOR wins one in court →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.