Five Former Methodist Hospital Employees Charged with HIPAA Violations

Memphis, TN – A federal grand jury has indicted five former Methodist Hospital Employees for conspiring with Roderick Harvey, 40, to unlawfully disclose patient information in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, commonly known as “HIPAA.” United States Attorney Kevin G. Ritz announced the indictment today.

HIPAA was enacted by Congress in 1996 to create national standards to protect sensitive patient information from being disclosed without a patient’s knowledge or consent. HIPAA’s provisions make it a crime to disclose patient information, or to obtain patient information with the intent to sell, transfer or use such information for personal gain.

According to the indictment, between November 2017 and December 2020, Harvey paid Kirby Dandridge, 38, Sylvia Taylor, 43, Kara Thompson, 30, Melanie Russell, 41, and Adrianna Taber, 26, to provide him with names and phone numbers of Methodist patients who had been involved in motor vehicle accidents. After obtaining the information, Harvey sold the information to third persons including personal injury attorneys and chiropractors.

The conspiracy charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 and three-year period of supervised release.

Harvey was also charged with seven counts of obtaining patient information with the intent to sell it for financial gain on various dates between November 12, 2017, and September 7, 2019. Each of those charges carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $250,000 and three years’ of supervised release.

Dandridge, Taylor, Thompson, Russell, and Taber were each charged with separate violations of disclosing the information to Harvey in violation of HIPAA. That charge carries a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment, a $50,000 fine and a one-year period of supervised release.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

United States Attorney Kevin Ritz thanked Assistant United States Attorney Carroll L. André III, who is prosecuting the case.

The charges and allegations in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

If a CSP stores only encrypted ePHI and does not have a decryption key, is it a HIPAA business associate? Answer: Yes, because the CSP receives and maintains (e.g., to process and/or store) electronic protected health information (ePHI) for a covered entity or another business associate. Lacking an encryption key for the encrypted data it receives and maintains does not exempt a CSP from business associate status and associated obligations under the HIPAA Rules. An entity that maintains ePHI on behalf of a covered entity (or another business associate) is a business associate, even if the entity cannot actually ...read more

Mental Health Center Corrects Process for Providing Notice of Privacy Practices Covered Entity: Outpatient Facility Issue: Notice A mental health center did not provide a notice of privacy practices (notice) to a father or his minor daughter, a patient at the center. In response to OCR’s investigation, the mental health center acknowledged that it had not provided the complainant and his daughter with a notice prior to her mental health evaluation. To resolve this matter, the mental health center revised its intake assessment policy and procedures to specify that the notice will be provided and the clinician will attempt to ...read more

Private Practice Revises Process to Provide Access to Records Regardless of Payment Source Covered Entity: Private Practices Issue: Access At the direction of an insurance company that had requested an independent medical exam of an individual, a private medical practice denied the individual a copy of the medical records. OCR determined that the private practice denied the individual access to records to which she was entitled by the Privacy Rule. Among other corrective actions to resolve the specific issues in the case, OCR required that the private practice revise its policies and procedures regarding access requests to reflect the ...read more

November 2025
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

Blog Home

Newest Blog Entries
1/21/25 Understanding Business Associate Agreements

11/12/22 Modernizing Medicine Agrees to Pay $45 Million to Resolve Allegations of Accepting and Paying Illegal Kickbacks and Causing False Claims

11/12/22 Indian National Charged in $8 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme

11/12/22 Former Hospital Employee Pleads Guilty To Criminal HIPPA Charges

11/12/22 Covered entities and those persons rendered accountable by general principles of corporate criminal liability may be prosecuted directly under 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6

11/12/22 The Delaware Division of Developmental Disabilities Services Data Breach

11/12/22 OCR Settles Three Cases with Dental Practices for Patient Right of Access under HIPAA

11/12/22 HHS Issues Guidance on HIPAA and Audio-Only Telehealth

11/12/22 Five Former Methodist Hospital Employees Charged with HIPAA Violations

11/12/22 May a covered entity use or disclose protected health information for litigation?

11/12/22 When does the Privacy Rule allow covered entities to disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials?

Blog Archives
November 2022 (54)
January 2025 (1)

Blog Labels
ePHI (2)
PPP Fraud (1)
EHR Fraud (1)
HIPAA Enforcement (3)
HIPAA (2)
BAA (4)
Data Breach (1)
Covered Entity (40)
Telehealth (1)