Opinion ID: 4503038
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reported HIPAA Violation

Text: [¶43] The Court decided that there was no causal connection between Pushard’s reporting of a possible HIPAA violation and his termination. Court’s Opinion ¶ 27. For purposes of this issue the Court assumed that the activity was protected activity. The Court held that Pushard “must rely solely on the temporal proximity between his report of a HIPAA violation and his 22 termination to establish causation.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 27. The Court never definitively decided that the reporting of the HIPAA violation was protected activity. [¶44] However, this issue surrounding the reporting of a HIPAA violation cannot be considered in isolation—it must be considered in the context of all that was going on during the 12 months that Pushard was director of nursing before his suspension and ultimate termination. More importantly, Pushard’s reporting of the HIPAA violation, combined with his complaints regarding the staffing levels and his complaints about the retaliatory treatment of his assistant who was also complaining about the staffing levels, are all facts upon which a jury could find that he was involved in protected activity.