United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ernest Bishop's
Complaint for a Civil Case, Dkt. No. 1
(“Complaint”). For the following reasons, the
Court recommends that Bishop's claim under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPAA”), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936
(1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 18, 26,
29, and 42 U.S.C.), be dismissed without prejudice from this
action.
The
Complaint's gravamen concerns interactions between Bishop
and Defendants when Bishop sought medical care at Hennepin
County Medical Center on or about November 8, 2017. (See
generally Exs. to Compl. (pages 1-2), Dkt. No.
1-1.[1]) As the Court understands the Complaint,
Bishop contends that Defendants inappropriately discharged
him from Hennepin County Medical Center while he was still
feeling as if he was suicidal and wanted to hurt himself.
(See Compl. at 4; Exs. to Compl. (page 2).) Bishop
contends that Defendants thus violated his rights under HIPAA
and committed malpractice. (Compl. at 4.)
In a
separate order, this Court is granting Bishop's
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs. (Dkt. No. 2.) Because Bishop brings this case
pro se, this Court, upon its own determination, may dismiss
from the case any portion of it that fails to state a claim
on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Atkinson v. Bohn, 91 F.3d 1127,
1128 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); see also Carter v.
Schafer, 273 Fed.Appx. 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
apply to all persons proceeding IFP and are not limited to
prisoner suits, and the provisions allow dismissal without
service.”). In reviewing whether a complaint states a
claim on which relief may be granted, this Court must accept
the complaint's factual allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See
Varga v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 764 F.3d 833,
838 (8th Cir. 2014). The complaint's factual allegations
need not be detailed, but must be sufficient to “raise
a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). The complaint must “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. In
assessing the complaint's sufficiency, the court may
disregard legal conclusions that are couched as factual
allegations. See Hager v. Ark. Dep't of Health,
735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Pro se complaints are
to be construed liberally, but they still must allege
sufficient facts to support the claims advanced. See
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)
(citing cases).
Bishop's
HIPAA claim has at least two problems requiring its
dismissal. First, HIPAA does not provide a private right of
action. See, e.g., Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d
563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing cases). Second, even if it
did, Bishop's claim here-that medical professionals
inappropriately discharged him from care-is not the sort of
wrong HIPAA addresses. Roughly speaking, HIPAA concerns the
portability of health-insurance coverage for various sorts of
employees, the standardization of certain kinds of
health-care information to simplify health-related
administrative tasks, and the need to maintain privacy and
security in individuals' health information. See,
e.g., Kathy Bakich & Kaye Pestaina, Employer's
Guide to HIPAA Privacy Requirements ¶ 100 (2018)
(providing HIPAA overview); D'Arcy Guerin Gue &
Steven J. Fox, Guide to Medical Privacy and HIPAA ¶ 100
(2015) (same). The Court is unaware of-and Bishop does not
point to-any HIPAA provision that corresponds to the sort of
wrong Bishop alleges. Given these two problems, the
Complaint's HIPAA claim should be dismissed without
prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION
Based
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
THAT the HIPAA claim in Plaintiff's Complaint be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDIUCE.
---------
Notes:
[1] When determining whether to dismiss a
complaint for failure to state a claim, a court primarily
considers the complaint's allegations, but a court may
also consider “‘exhibits attached to the
complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned.'”
Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Lab., Inc.,
688 F.3d 928, 931 n.3 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting 5B Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)). The Court here
considers a two-page printout that appears to be Bishop's
November 2017 entries into an online “Complaint
Portal” maintained by the U.S. Department for Health
and Human Services; these entries detail events presumably
underlying the present action. For purposes of understanding
Bishop's allegations here, the Court sees no reason ...