Cook county general orders8/11/2023 ![]() ![]() Given the limited options for challenging GAO 21-3 and the QPO as a whole, Defendants’ best strategy will likely be to challenge individual provisions of the QPO on a case-by-case basis, based on the particular facts of that case. Defendants have not been ordered to agree to the revised QPO defendants only have to sign it if they wish to subpoena records containing PHI. Contempt findings are entered where a party refuses to comply with a court’s order to do something. What can defendants do now? Although some have argued that defendants should refuse to sign the new Standard HIPAA QPO and seek a contempt finding for the purpose of bringing the new provisions up for appeal, it is unclear whether this strategy would be successful. GAO 21-3 therefore adopts the HIPAA QPO utilized by the plaintiff in Haage and approved by the Illinois Supreme Court. Although the Illinois Supreme Court did not specifically address the propriety of the other provisions, by approving the plaintiffs’ QPO, it implicitly approved all of the provisions as a whole for use in place of the Cook County then-standard order. The plaintiffs’ QPO in Haage, however, also contained time and subject matter limitations, as well as notice and production requirements, not directly at issue. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately approved the plaintiffs’ HIPAA QPO and specifically rejected Cook County’s then-Standard QPO as violating HIPAA. The two Lake County Judges approved the HIPAA QPO and the Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial Districted, affirmed. The plaintiffs in Haage in two consolidated cases tendered to the Court a draft HIPAA QPO the Haage defendants tendered a copy of Cook County’s then-standard QPO, which specifically excluded insurance carriers from requirements for the return and/or destruction of all PHI at the end of litigation. The defendant insurance company in Haage claimed that retention of some PHI was essential for compliance with insurance laws and regulations. ![]() The new provisions in the order purportedly are to bring the Standard HIPAA QPO in line with the holdings in Haage, which focused on the requirement for PHI destruction at the conclusion of litigation. While these requirements impact the defendants’ ability to obtain a complete picture of a plaintiff’s medical history and challenge claimed damages, there are few options for overturning or reversing the new Standard HIPAA QPO. Proof of the destruction of all PHI may be made by affidavit of counsel.Within 60 days after the conclusion of litigation, the plaintiff’s PHI must be returned to the producing covered entities and/or destroyed (including electronically stored copies). ![]() Defendants are required to provide a copy of all records received in response to any subpoena to all parties within 7 days of receipt of the records. ![]() Defendants must give the plaintiff 14 days’ notice prior to issuing any subpoena for PHI-containing records.Subpoenas for materials containing PHI must specifically be restricted to five (5) years prior to the incident and relate to the condition(s) and portion(s) of the plaintiff’s body complained of.Subpoenas for “any and all” medical records or other records containing personal health information (PHI) may no longer be issued.These include time and subject matter limitations on the scope of subpoenas for medical records or other PHI, as well as new requirements for the handling of records following receipt of subpoenaed materials and at the close of litigation. Several provisions in the new QPO are significant changes from current practice, and of particular interest and concern to defendants. Flannery, entered General Administrative Order 21-3, which mandates use of a new Standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order (QPO) in the Cook County Law Division pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court case of Haage v. On November 5, 2021, Presiding Judge Hon. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |