Healthcare
,
HIPAA/HITECH
,
Industry Specific
Epic v. Health Gorilla Lawsuit Spurs New Claims Over Alleged Patient Records Misuse

A Texas telehealth firm admitted it gained access to patient medical records through a health information exchange network under the false guise of treatment purposes. It actually provided the records to law firms.
See Also: The Healthcare CISO’s Guide to Medical IoT Security
The revelation by GuardDog Telehealth comes in a proposed consent judgement filed on Friday in ongoing litigation launched in January by electronic health records vendor Epic.
Epic and other plaintiffs accuse GuardDog and several other alleged “fraudster” companies of obtaining access to health records by going through a California company named Health Gorilla (see: Epic Lawsuit Targets Alleged ‘Sham’ Providers in Data HIE).
Health Gorilla provides an interoperability platform and is a Qualified Health Information Network under the federally sponsored Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement to facilitate nationwide health data exchange.
Epic in its lawsuit alleges that Health Gorilla provided electronic connections to Carequality, TEFCA and other health information exchanges, allowing GuardDog and other firms to obtain thousands of patient medical records based on the false assertion that the patient medical records were all being requested for treatment purposes.
Epic said it obtained an admission from GuardDog that it provided medical records to law firms for potential lawsuits. “Its goal was to provide chronic care management and remote patient monitoring for patients, but that did not happen,” Epic attorneys wrote. GuardDog agreed with Epic to seek a court order permanently barring from requesting patient records using TEFCA and Carequality interoperability frameworks.
In addition, under a proposed judgment requiring sign off from a federal judge, GuardDog would be required to “delete any patient health information or records obtained from the TEFCA or Carequality frameworks within one week,” and banned from any further use or dissemination of any patient health information or records it obtained.
As of Tuesday, GuardDog’s website appeared “deactivated.” Health Gorilla in a statement posted on its website said GuardDog’s consent judgement “has no legal impact” on Health Gorilla, “and is incomplete at best and misleading at worst.”
Health Gorilla maintains that GuardDog never informed Health Gorilla of any non-treatment use of patient information, “and we are prepared to demonstrate it did not,” the company said.
“In addition, when Health Gorilla sought to investigate GuardDog along with the interoperability networks and several major health providers, GuardDog failed to respond and refused to cooperate,” Health Gorilla said.
“Epic’s lawsuit remains an attack on interoperability that threatens patient safety and efficient healthcare nationwide, made worse by misleading submissions like its agreement with GuardDog. Health Gorilla continues to fully comply with all applicable data-sharing frameworks, and we remain confident as we address these claims through the legal processes,” Health Gorilla said.
Epic said it is continuing its lawsuit against Health Gorilla and the other defendants.
Epic Faces Its Own Legal Liability
The legal dispute between Epic and Health Gorilla late last week became even more complicated, with three new separate putative class action lawsuits, this time filed against Epic and several co-defendants.
The plaintiffs in those cases, who are patients of Epic’s healthcare organization clients – alleged Epic was negligent in failing to prevent Health Gorilla and its clients from connecting to Epic’s Care Everywhere health information exchange, resulting in alleged data breaches.
“Defendant Epic knew or should have known that Health Gorilla and/or its clients were misusing the Care Everywhere platform to access patient records for non-treatment purposes. Despite this knowledge, Defendant Epic failed to take timely corrective action,” one lawsuit alleges.
“These cases show how fast this is expanding beyond the original lawsuit. Notably, these complaints against Epic appear to lean heavily on the very facts Epic itself alleged in its case filed against Health Gorilla,” said attorney Helen Oscislawski, founder of law firm Attorneys at Oscislawski, which is not involved in the lawsuits.
The cases underscore legal weaknesses in the current health data interoperability and exchange environment “that create opportunities for exploitation,” Oscislawski said. “As a result, health information exchanges and health information networks would be well advised to take a fresh look at their processes, governance and contractual safeguards.”
“Organizations that have historically structured these issues primarily through business teams or industry consultants should strongly consider involving experienced legal counsel who understands interoperability, privacy, data sharing and the related regulatory landscape,” Oscislawski added.
