A federal judge from the District of Minnesota has ruled that insurance giant Chubb Corp. must turn over redacted copies of the independent medical exams of NHL players. The exams were conducted after the players filed workers’ compensation claims associated with head trauma they experienced while playing hockey.
The legal decision arises from a class action lawsuit that 105 players filed against the NHL in 2013. Two years after the filing of that complaint, the players presented a subpoena to Chubb, the league’s long-time insurer, seeking documents related to the claims filed by players, which were associated with head trauma or brain disease.
Chubb countered that releasing such information would violate the players’ rights to privacy.
Chubb lawyer Peter Walsh reportedly wrote that production of NHL retirees’ independent medical examinations (IMEs) “would affect their rights – in particular, their right to the privacy in their medical information. Like other medical records, IMEs contain intimate facts of a personal nature, and thus are protected by the right of privacy in medical information. Plaintiffs contend that IMEs are not protected by the physician-patient privilege. But sometimes they actually are.”
He also added that redacting identifying information from the medical records was not enough to offset privacy concerns.
The court disagreed, writing that the insurer “shall redact all personal identifying information of the retiree from the independent medical exams,” such as name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, team, current occupation and injury date.
Further, she reasoned that IMEs were “the product of an inherently adversarial relationship between the claimant who is seeking workers’ compensation benefits and his employer’s insurer, Chubb.”
Expert Weighs In
Fletcher Brown, a partner of the national health law firm of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP and a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) expert, offered the following insight on the case.
“The insurance company appears to be using the claimant’s own privacy rights to deny records of that same claimant,” said Brown. “I agree with the judge’s thought that there is an adversarial nature of the IME.”
He added that “it doesn’t sound like Chubb asserted a HIPAA protection, likely because the former players waived that protection with the subpoena. That would only leave Chubb with the general ‘privacy’ claim to try and avoid disclosure of the IMEs.
