An EMT who casually mentioned a patient's overdose to a friend was hit with a $33,460 judgment for violating Wisconsin's patient confidentiality laws. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals on May 28, 2003 upheld the judgment, which followed a jury verdict handed down against the blabbing medic personally.

The lawsuit, brought under a Wisconsin privacy statute, underscores the importance of having a solid policy in place for safeguarding the privacy of patient health information and the steep penalties that can follow where that shield of privacy is violated. Though the private action did not implicate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), it signals the arrival of a new culture marked by HIPAA's looming presence. HIPAA does not allow for private causes of action, but could lead to hefty fines, and even jail time, imposed by the federal government for violating the privacy standards set forth therein.

In the Wisconsin case of Pachowitz v. Ledoux, the Defendant EMT was a volunteer medic who responded to a 911 emergency involving the Plaintiff, who had apparently suffered an overdose. After the Plaintiff was treated and released from a local hospital, the medic realized that she and the Plaintiff patient shared a mutual friend. The Defendant medic testified that she called the mutual friend and told her about the overdose because she thought the mutual friend might be able to help the Plaintiff in some way. The jury, and Wisconsin Court of Appeals, was not moved by the Defendant medic's good intentions.

The Court ruled that uttering word of the Plaintiff's personal medical history to just one friend was enough to violate the Wisconsin state confidentiality statute. The medic, individually, as well as her volunteer fire department and its insurer were assessed $3,000 in compensatory damages and $30,460 in attorney fees for the miscue.

The lesson to be learned is clear: More than ever before, now is the time to act quickly to get your privacy and safeguarding policies in place. With the dawning of the HIPAA era, the government will likely be very active in pursuing claims against covered entities who violate the privacy rights of their patients. A state action under your state's invasion of privacy statute would likely follow, given the fact that most states have in place confidentiality statutes similar in scope to the one at issue in the Wisconsin case.

For more information about the Wisconsin case, and to ensure you are protected throughout these changing times, please contact Kevin E. Sralla at Blanco Wilczynski, P.C. at (248) 519-9000 or via email at kes@blancopc.com.