Angelina Maggiore (D) Versus Notre Dame Health System D/B/A Chateau De Notre Dame

ANGELINA MAGGIORE (D) NO. 22-C-328

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

NOTRE DAME HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A COURT OF APPEAL
CHATEAU DE NOTRE DAME
STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 11, 2022

Mary E. Legnon
Chief Deputy Clerk

IN RE ANGELINA MAGGIORE

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL, DIVISION "D", NUMBER 826-630

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and June B. Darensburg

WRIT GRANTED

Relator seeks review of the July 13, 2022 judgment of the trial
court denying the motion to compel the identification of the
decedent’s roommate while decedent was a resident at respondent’s
nursing home facility. For the following reasons, we grant this writ
application.
Relator filed a complaint with the Louisiana Division of
Administration regarding injuries sustained by the decedent during a
fall while a resident at the respondent’s nursing home. During
discovery proceedings in the district court, relator propounded an
interrogatory to respondent requesting the “name and phone number
of the patient or resident who shared a room” with relator on
September 7-12, 2021. Respondent refused to answer claiming this
information was protected by “HIPPA guidelines.”
Relator filed a motion to compel this information. At the
hearing on the motion, the trial court stated that the incident report,
which has not been made part of this writ application, states that no
one witnessed the fall and the court was “not going [to allow] a
fishing expedition with somebody who is in a home and could have
their [sic] privacy issues related to it.” The court went on to state that
the denial of the motion to compel this information is “without
prejudice as it relates to the name of the roommate,” and if relator
“found something” in discovery he “would revisit the issue.”
Relator then asked the trial judge if he found “that the HIPPA
prevents a disclosure of the name of a resident?” to which the trial
judge responded: “I do…..I don’t think that the identity of this

22-C-328

individual is necessary, and I think if you identify this individual, you
are certainly getting into the identity of somebody who is in a nursing
home.”
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996 (“HIPAA”) protects information created or received by a
healthcare provider that concerns the past, present, or future physical
or mental condition of an individual. 42 C.F.R. §106.103. The
regulation provides for disclosure of protected health information
without the consent of the individual subject to certain exceptions
provided for in 42 C.F.R. §164.512. This section allows protective
healthcare information to be disclosed “in the course of any judicial or
administrative hearing …[or] in response to a …discovery request”
without a court order where the “covered entity receives satisfactory
assurance” from the requesting party that he has made “reasonable
efforts….to ensure that the individual who is the subject” of the
request “has been given notice of such request.” Alternatively, the
party requesting the information has assured the covered entity that
“reasonable efforts have been made…to secure a qualified protective
order…”
Although there are no Louisiana cases addressing the specific
request for the name of a roommate of a plaintiff who was treated at a
covered healthcare facility, several other jurisdictions have allowed
such disclosure.
In May v. Northern Health Facilities, Inc., 08-P-0054, 2009 Ohio-
1442, 2009 WL 806927, the plaintiffs alleged that the decedent received
substandard care while a patient in the defendant’s nursing home. The
plaintiffs sought the names and last known addresses of all roommates
during the time she was a resident at the nursing home to determine whether
they may have witnessed the alleged substandard care. The May court
rejected the nursing home’s argument that the names of the decedent’s
roommates were protected communications pursuant to HIPAA and could
not be disclosed, holding that the “names of the appellant’s roommates were
not confidential information under statute insomuch as the names and
addresses did not concern any facts, opinions, or statements necessary to
enable a physician to diagnose, treat, prescribe, or act for a patient.” The
May court noted that HIPAA allows disclosure of “‘protected health
information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding in
response to a court order…by subpoena, discovery request or by other
lawful processes…” Id. See also, Dauterman v. Toledo Hosp., 11-Ohio-
148, 2011 WL 28114920.
Likewise, in Ruzzier v. Nw. Lake Forest Hosp., 17 IL App (1st)
161300-U, 2017 WL 2124349, the plaintiff in a suit against defendant
hospital sought the name of the roommate and the roommate’s visitor who
were present while she was a patient in the defendant hospital. The court
held that the disclosure of the name and address of the patient and the visitor
is not precluded by HIPAA, because HIPAA permits the disclosure of such
information in judicial proceedings, provided the correct procedure is
followed pursuant to 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e).
Similarly, in Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc., 205 A.D.3d
548, 550, 169 N.Y.S.3d 262, 265–66 (2022), the court held that the
disclosure of the identity of other patients who had been assaulted at the
defendant hospital would not violate HIPAA subject to a showing that the
party seeking disclosure has made a good faith effort to secure a qualified

2

protective order. See also, Rogers v. NYU Hosps. Ctr., 8 Misc. 3d 730, 734-
35, 795 N.Y.S.2d 438, 441-42 (Sup. Ct. 2005).
The information requested by relator in this matter reveals nothing,
other than the fact that the decedent’s roommate was a resident of the
respondent nursing home on these five specific days. Relator is not
requesting medical or healthcare information regarding the decedent’s
roommate; nor is that fact that the roommate was a resident of the nursing
home indicative of any medical condition that she may have had. Thus, the
trial court erred in denying relator’s motion to compel.
For the foregoing reasons, this writ application is granted and the
portion of the July 13, 2022 judgment denying the motion to compel is
vacated. This matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings
consistent with this disposition.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 11th day of August, 2022.

JJM
MEJ
JBD

3

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
INTERIM CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 08/11/2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

22-C-328
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Hon. Scott U. Schlegel (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Christopher J. Bruno (Relator)
Lorraine P. McInnis (Respondent)

MAILED