Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/volume_25_issue_2?pg=98
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:40:01+00:00

Document:
Notwithstanding, most plaintiffs injured by a provider or developer data breach will have to rely on common law causes of action.
227. See 45 C.F.R. § 160 (2013); 45 C.F.R. § 164 (2013). 228. 42 U.S.C. § 17939 (2010). 229. Id. 230. CAL. CIV. CODE § 56. 35 (West 2000). 231. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652A-652B, 652H (AM. LAW INST. 1977). 232. See, e.g., Knight v. Penobscot Bay Med. Ctr., 420 A.2d 915 (Me. 1980) (rejecting plaintiff’s appeal of lower court’s ruling that defendants, a hospital, a doctor, a nurse, and an observer, invaded plaintiffs’ privacy); cf. Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792 (Me. 1976) (sustaining the administratrix’ appeal of the grant of a directed verdict in favor of the surgeon and ordered a new trial as to the administratrix’ invasion of privacy and assault and battery causes of action involving the photographs of her deceased husband which were taken by the surgeon while her husband was dying). 233. See, e.g., Johns v. Firstar Bank, NA, No. 2004-CA-001558-MR, 2006 Ky. App.

References: § 160
 § 164
 § 17939
 § 56
 § 652
 v. 
 v. 
 v.