Court: Hospital violated statute in releasing man’s room number

Listen to this article

A man who was hospitalized and wished to keep his location private was distressed when his former spouse showed up after a hospital employee disclosed his specific hospital, room, and bed numbers to her. While the district court ruled that this disclosure did not constitute a release of a “health record” under the Minnesota Health Records Act (HRA), the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the information qualified as a health record under the statute.

Justin Holtzbauer was injured while working as a tree trimmer and went to Allina’s Mercy Hospital in Coon Rapids for treatment. He opted out of the facility directory, resulting in a “confidential encounter” designation that, under Allina policy, barred disclosure of his presence. Although Holtzbauer informed his former spouse, H.H., that he was hospitalized, he specifically told her not to visit.

When she didn’t receive a reply to a follow-up message to her text message to Holtzbauer, H.H. began calling local hospitals. An employee at United Hospital, an Allina facility, told her that Holtzbauer was at Mercy Hospital and gave H.H. his room and bed number—information that violated Allina’s confidentiality policy.

H.H. later showed up at the hospital uninvited, and although Holtzbauer eventually agreed to see her, the visit caused him emotional distress and led to multiple arguments. She returned again that afternoon with their daughters, prompting another confrontation. Holtzbauer testified that he had not wanted her to come, fearing verbal conflict, but felt it was too late to prevent further harm once she arrived.

Holtzbauer filed a lawsuit against Allina under Minnesota Statutes section 144.298, subdivision 2(1), which allows individuals to sue if a health care provider negligently or intentionally discloses a health record. He claimed that Allina violated the Health Records Act by revealing that he was a patient at Mercy Hospital and disclosing his specific room and bed number. As a result of this disclosure, Holtzbauer alleged that he experienced emotional harm, anger, embarrassment, frustration, shame, and anxiety.

Although Allina stipulated that its employee disclosed the information, it argued that that it should receive summary judgment because the disclosure did not violate the Health Records Act. The district court agreed with Allina, finding that there was no violation of the Health Records Act.

Before the Court of Appeals was the question of whether releasing information about what room and bed a person is in at a hospital is a disclosure of a health record.

“Unfortunately, there was a mistake made in this case. But it wasn’t a violation of the HRA,” asserted Mark Bradford, a partner at Bradford Andresen Norrie & Camarotto, who represented Allina. He noted the employee received additional attention to prevent them from making the same mistake.

“The Act refers to anything related to the provision of treatment. What can be more related to the provision of treatment than where a person receives health care?” argued Christopher Kuhlman, of Kuhlman Law, who represented Holtzbauer. “I think most people would expect that they are free to disclose where they receive health care, but they should be able to make that choice themselves. I believe the statute gives them that authority.”

The court found that the plain language of the statute supported Holtzbauer’s view. It also noted situations where disclosure of the location could be even more damaging to the patient.

“[T]he fact that an individual is a current patient at a specific hospital and in a specific room is inherently personal information that the person may want to keep private for any host of reasons,” wrote Judge Elizabeth Bentley. “As one example, a survivor of domestic violence who seeks the provision of health care after an assault may justifiably want to keep the fact and location of the hospitalization private from their abuser. As another example, a person receiving reproductive health care may wish to keep the fact and location of such care private from someone outside of the patient-provider relationship.”

Judge Matthew Johnson dissented, finding that the court’s interpretation was unjustified by the statutory text or context.

“I am concerned that the court’s opinion will have negative consequences for those persons who do not wish to keep secret the fact that they are hospitalized and for those persons’ family members and friends,” Johnson stated. “It surely is true that, every day, in a hospital somewhere in Minnesota, a family member learns that a loved one is suddenly hospitalized and rushes to the hospital to learn of the loved one’s condition, to comfort the person, to consult with physicians, or to supply a health care directive. Or a clergyperson goes to a hospital to visit a member of the clergyperson’s religious community, perhaps in an end-of-life scenario. Or a law-enforcement officer goes to a hospital to interview the victim of a crime, perhaps to obtain critical evidence before it is too late. The possible scenarios are too numerous to catalog here. The court’s opinion likely will prohibit a large number of such beneficial disclosures but only a small number of harmful disclosures.”