Opinion ID: 8312496
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: HIPAA Violation

Text: The defendants argue that the plaintiff's claim under the HIPAA fails as a matter of law because no private right of action exists under the Act. See Defs.' Mem. at 7. The Court agrees. HIPAA does not contain any express language conferring privacy rights upon a specific class of individuals. Instead, it focuses on regulating persons that have access to individually identifiable medical information and who conduct certain electronic health care transactions. Acara v. Banks , 470 F.3d 569 , 571 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-1 (1996) ). Every district court that has considered this issue is in agreement that the statute does not support a private right of action. Id. (citing cases); see also Brown v. Hill , 174 F.Supp.3d 66 , 71 (D.D.C. 2016) (examining cases); Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 806 F.Supp.2d 180 , 195-96 (D.D.C. 2011), aff'd , 493 Fed.Appx. 107 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (In light of the statutory language of § 1320d-5 and the apparent consensus among the courts that have considered the question, this Court finds that Plaintiff has no private HIPAA right of action.);  Husain v. Smith , No. 15-cv-708, 2016 WL 4435177 , at  (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2016) (courts have consistently recognized [that HIPAA] provides no private right of action) (citing Runkle v. Gonzales , 391 F.Supp.2d 210 , 237 (D.D.C. 2005) (other citations omitted) ). Rather, an individual's 'only redress for an alleged HIPAA violation is to lodge a written complaint with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Office for Civil Rights, which has the discretion to investigate the complaint and impose sanctions, both civil and criminal.'  Brown , 174 F.Supp.3d at 71 (quoting Johnson v. Kuehne & Nagel Inc. , No. 11-cv-02317, 2012 WL 1022939 , at  (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing 45 C.F.R. § 160.306 ) (other citations omitted) ). Accordingly, the plaintiff's HIPAA claim is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).