Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Federal Court Decides Hospital is Not a Consumer Reporting Agency

Publications

August 27, 2015

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Illinois' largest hospital system, Advocate Health Care, is not a "consumer reporting agency" for purposes of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The case, Tierney v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., affirmed the judgment of the district court, granting the hospital's motion to dismiss.

The case arose from a data breach in which burglars stole four desktop computers from one of Advocate's administrative offices. The computers contained unencrypted private data relating to four million Advocate patients. Several patients filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Advocate violated the FCRA's requirement that a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") maintain reasonable procedures to ensure it does not furnish consumer reports to unauthorized third parties.

In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Seventh Circuit found that Advocate did not meet the FCRA's statutory definition of a CRA in multiple ways. Although Advocate regularly assembles patients' personal information, it does not do so "for monetary fees" as required by the FCRA. Neither was Advocate's assembly of consumer information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, also required for Advocate to be considered a CRA. The consumer information assembled by Advocate came solely from transactions or experiences between the patients and Advocate, and thereby was expressly excluded by statute from the definition of a "consumer report."

The court's decision in Tierney follows other decisions in data breach litigation that have rejected plaintiffs' attempts to push the envelope for CRA liability under the FCRA. That push is motivated by the generous remedial provisions of the FCRA, including the availability of statutory damages (without the need to prove actual damages) on a class-wide basis without a statutory cap. By recognizing commonsense limits to the FCRA's expansive definition of a CRA, Tierney provides helpful precedent for healthcare companies that find themselves in FCRA litigation.


In Case You Missed It:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.