Opinion ID: 2741507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: murphy’s lawsuit

Text: Murphy feared that signing the requisite authorization form would allow ex parte interviews about his health care and would result in an invasion of privacy. Murphy testified that his decision to sue Dr. Dulay in state court depended in part on whether he must submit such authorization form allowing ex parte interviews of his health care providers. To determine whether compliance was necessary, Murphy filed a complaint against Dr. Dulay in federal district court seeking “a declaration that the presuit authorization of ex parte communications with his physicians and other health-care providers and the scope of information authorized for release . . . violates his federal rights under [HIPAA].” 3 Murphy’s complaint contended that: (1) HIPAA’s Privacy Rule protects “personal health and medical information from uses not related to medical and health care”; (2) Florida’s § 766.1065 “authorizes 3 The complaint also named as a defendant “Adolfo C. Dulay, M.D., P.A.,” the entity through which Dr. Dulay practices medicine. For ease of reference, we refer to these two defendants collectively as “Dr. Dulay.” 8 Case: 13-14637 Date Filed: 10/10/2014 Page: 9 of 36 procedures at variance from, and in derogation of, what is authorized by federal law” under the Supremacy Clause; and (3) therefore, “HIPAA expressly preempts these contrary procedures.” The complaint requested: (1) a declaratory judgment that HIPAA preempted § 766.1065’s presuit authorization requirement and (2) an injunction against forced compliance with § 766.1065 in the event Murphy sued Dr. Dulay. The State of Florida intervened to defend the Florida statute. Both Dr. Dulay and the State filed motions to dismiss. After oral argument, the district court granted Murphy’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief and denied Dr. Dulay’s and the State’s motions to dismiss. The district court found that Murphy had retained experts already and his decision to give presuit notice depended on whether he had to authorize ex parte interviews. The district court also found that Dr. Dulay and his representatives wanted to conduct the ex parte interviews allowed by § 766.1065. The district court held that “consent given only in an authorization that is required by Florida law as a presuit condition is not voluntary.” Because the § 766.1065 authorization form was not voluntary, the district court concluded that § 766.1065 would result in disclosure of Murphy’s HIPAA-protected health information without his consent and without other safeguards in HIPAA and its regulations. Thus, § 766.1065 was contrary to the HIPAA provisions and 9 Case: 13-14637 Date Filed: 10/10/2014 Page: 10 of 36 preempted. The district court enjoined Dr. Dulay from obtaining any of Murphy’s health information through ex parte interviews, unless Dr. Dulay complied with HIPAA or Murphy voluntarily consented outside the Florida statutory scheme. 4 Dr. Dulay and the State timely appealed.