In an opinion issued Thursday, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources must follow a Kanawha County circuit judge's order to restore access to patient records for patient advocates at the state's two psychiatric hospitals.
In his opinion, Justice Allen Loughry wrote that the DHHR must allow advocates from Legal Aid of West Virginia to inspect patient records at Mildred Mitchell Bateman Hospital, in Huntington, and William R. Sharpe Jr. Hospital, in Weston, the two state-run hospitals at the center of the ongoing E.H. v Matin case. Loughry also wrote the majority opinion issued last week affirming several orders issued by Kanawha Circuit Judge Duke Bloom in the case.
"[The Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] was never intended to serve as a hindrance to patient services or civil rights; it was designed to prevent the inappropriate use or dissemination of protected health information," Loughry wrote. "In the case before us, the DHHR has failed to demonstrate that Legal Aid has disseminated any protected health information in violation of federal or state law."
Legal Aid of West Virginia has provided advocacy services for patients at both Sharpe and Bateman since a 1990 court order. Last June, patient advocates based at Sharpe and Bateman hospitals were locked out of the electronic patient records without prior notice. Later, their S-Keys, which allowed them access to many parts of the hospitals, were taken away without warning. On August 27, Bloom ordered the DHHR to restore access to patient records for the advocates - a decision DHHR appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the circuit court's order violates both the patients' constitutional rights to privacy and the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
"For more than a decade, the DHHR provided the patient advocates with full access to computerized patient records, to the patient wards, and other areas of the hospitals. Then, in June 2014, with no prior notice, the DHHR began requiring the patient advocates to obtain signed releases from each patient, the patient's guardian, and/or the person with the medical power of attorney before obtaining any information from or about the patient," Loughry wrote. "Given that the first and only complaint concerning an alleged violation of HIPAA was filed in 2014 by the DHHR - almost twenty years after the federal act became law - it is clear that inappropriate disclosure of patient information has not been taking place as implied by the DHHR."
The Supreme Court based its opinion solely on state law, Loughry wrote, noting that because Legal Aid is not a "health oversight agency" as defined by HIPAA and has no means of correcting issues it finds at the hospitals under its own power, its ability to review patient records is provided under state law.
Justice Robin Davis dissented, but did not issue a dissenting opinion on Thursday.
Reach Lydia Nuzum at lydia.nuzum@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5189 or follow @lydianuzum on Twitter.