Opinion ID: 2283325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Treating Physicians Comply with HIPAA and Missouri Law

Text: Subsequent to Brandt I and Brandt II, Congress passed HIPAA. Although Missouri's statutory law and this Court's rules of discovery on the topic of the physician testimonial privilege has remained silent on the issue of voluntary ex parte communications with a litigant patient's treating physician, HIPAA is not silent. HIPAA's general rule is that ex parte communications with a litigant patient's physician are prohibited. Absent an exception to this general rule in the enumerated exceptions outlined in HIPAA, HIPAA plainly prohibits such communications. As this Court noted above, to determine if HIPAA preempts state law, this Court must determine whether or not HIPAA's prohibition of the oral disclosure of plaintiff's protected health information by one or more of plaintiff's treating physicians, absent authorization by plaintiff, preempts Missouri law that fails to prohibit such ex parte disclosures. Pursuant to HIPAA's regulations: Contrary, when used to compare a provision of State law to a standard, requirement, or implementation specification adopted under this subchapter, means: (1) A covered entity would find it impossible to comply with both the State and federal requirements; or (2) The provision of State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of part C of title XI of the Act or section 264 of Pub.L. 104-191 ... as applicable. 45 C.F.R. § 160.202. Missouri courts are bound to follow HIPAA's statutory and regulatory mandate, but HIPAA does not preempt Missouri law on this particular issue. [5] As this Court noted above, in Brandt I, this Court did not affirmatively create a right for attorneys to engage in voluntary and informal ex parte communication with plaintiff's physician. Instead, this Court merely confirmed that, at that time, there was no state or federal law that prohibited such informal communications with plaintiff's physicians. Brandt I, 856 S.W.2d at 663. In other words, the holding was that in the absence of a statutory prohibitioneither state or federalit would not prohibit ex parte communications between an attorney and a physician.