HIPAA Complaint About Fairview Health Services

HIPAA Complaint About Fairview Health Services 

Jane Johnson’s parents were as excited about her turning 12 years old as she was. The middle-school years would likely bring many changes, including new after-school activities, varied sports, and a wider circle of friends. 

Unfortunately, Shaun and Katherine Johnson also learned then that Jane has a rare health condition requiring lifelong medical attention. Although they promptly accepted these challenges, they could not have guessed that Jane’s medical providers would illegally shut them out of viewing her electronic medical records on the online portal they maintain after Jane turned 12. 

CIR is representing Shaun and Katherine to reverse this blatant interference with their right under federal law to access their minor daughter’s electronic medical records, which also seriously burdens their constitutional rights as parents. 

Parents and Proxy Access 

At a regular wellness visit in late 2023, Jane’s doctor had some concerns that led to a diagnosis of mosaic Turner Syndrome—a chromosomal disorder that can affect every part of the body. In Jane’s case, it resulted in cardiac abnormalities requiring lifelong management and care. 

After the diagnosis, the Johnsons sought treatment for their daughter at Fairview Health Services. Katherine wanted to review the doctor’s notes in Jane’s electronic medical records (maintained in the hospital’s MyChart records system) before their next appointment, but she discovered that the hospital had revoked her access to her minor daughter’s electronic medical records on the database. 

When Katherine inquired about this, a Fairview nurse handed her a two-page MyChart proxy access request form and said that because Jane had passed her twelfth birthday, she would need to meet with hospital staff alone to give consent for her parents to view her electronic medical records.  

When the Johnsons objected to this intrusive interview with their young daughter merely to view her electronic medical records, Fairview offered an alternative: The Johnsons could request paper, PDF, or other versions of particular records, which would be sent within 30 days. The Johnsons believe this process is wholly inadequate. Based on their experience, it fails to provide the complete information available through the MyChart portal.  

And for parents managing a child’s serious illness, including regular heart scans and dynamic electronic imaging, 30-day delays and disjointed health records are unacceptable when federal policy has promoted prompt electronic access to comprehensive medical records for decades. As we related in our complaint linked below, federal law expressly provides that parents like the Johnsons have a right “to access the protected health information in the form and format requested … [including] the electronic form and format requested.” 

HIPAA Hypocrisy 

Fairview’s across-the-board policy on parental access to electronic medical records substantially interferes with the fundamental constitutional right of parents to care for their children. As we argue in our original and second complaints to U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) below, it also violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which set federal standards for protecting sensitive patient health information and mandates industry-wide standards for electronic health information like MyChart. 

Under HIPAA’s Privacy Rule, parents have rights to access their minor child’s health information, with the exception of narrowly defined rules pertaining to certain procedures involving pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, or when a provider believes the release of information would pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. 

In this case, Fairview Health Services cites a Minnesota state law that further defines exceptions to HIPAA’s privacy rule, including exemptions involving pregnancy, drug abuse, domestic violence, and neglect. As we argue in the HHS complaints, none of these exceptions in state law are relevant to the management and treatment of Turner Syndrome or to Jane’s individual case. 

“The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” 

Pierce v. Society of Sisters 

Serious Threat to Parents Rights 

Fairview Health Services’ refusal to abide by federal HIPAA standards is doubly wrong. It interferes with parents’ fundamental constitutional right to raise, educate and care for their children—and it violates clear federal law and the rules issued under that law. 

By unduly limiting all access to its MyChart electronic medical records for minor children, Fairview runs afoul of a long line of court rulings going back a century. Those cases affirmed that parents’ fundamental choices about raising their children cannot be regulated by the state without exceptional justification. As the Supreme Court forcefully expressed in one of its earliest parental rights decisions, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, “The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” 

Jane Johnson is not a creature of the state. She is the minor child of Shaun and Katherine, whose fundamental parental rights indisputably include access to their child’s MyChart electronic medical records without the hospital’s interference.