By: Jennifer Walsh

A growing concern among patient privacy advocates is whether large national insurers can use litigation as a mechanism to harvest and permanently retain private medical records of citizens who have no connection to any lawsuit.

Legal experts in Georgia are raising questions about the limits of legal discovery and the constitutional protections afforded to patient privacy. At issue is a troubling pattern: discovery requests that seek not just relevant case information, but expansive access to patient data that can then be retained indefinitely.

“This is about preventing a dangerous precedent,” said Yasha Heidari, attorney at Delgado Heidari LLC. “A single allegation should not act as a legal pretext to unlock and archive the private medical records of thousands of uninvolved citizens.”

The Permanent Record Danger

In an era of increasing concern over data privacy and security breaches, the implications extend far beyond any single courtroom. If insurers can accumulate permanent records of patient medical data harvested through litigation, it fundamentally changes the nature of the doctor-patient relationship.

Standard legal practice typically requires that sensitive information obtained through discovery be returned or destroyed once litigation concludes. But when orders permit indefinite retention, critics describe it as effectively authorizing the creation of a court-sanctioned database of private citizen information.

“Once this data is handed over, it never goes away,” Heidari warned. “Permitting insurers to keep and use private medical history forever creates a permanent surveillance mechanism at the expense of patient confidentiality.”

Proportionality Concerns

The principle of proportionality is meant to govern legal discovery. Parties can seek information relevant to their case, but they cannot embark on fishing expeditions, demanding vast troves of data in hopes of finding something useful.

Under Georgia’s Constitution, citizens have a right to privacy that protects against unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information. Medical records receive heightened protection under this framework because they reveal intimate details about an individual’s physical condition and health history.

“Discovery must be proportional,” Heidari explained. “A party cannot seek company-wide financial data and private patient lists from dozens of facilities to investigate a single provider. That exceeds constitutional boundaries.”

Precedent Exists

Georgia appellate courts have addressed similar arguments in the past. Courts have rejected expansive data requests based on legal theories that would grant unlimited access to medical practice records under the guise of investigating potential bias.

Medical practices like Ortho Sport and Spine Physicians LLC have been working through proper legal channels to ensure these precedents are upheld and patient privacy is protected.

“The arguments for limitless data access have been rejected by Georgia courts,” Heidari noted. “We continue to see the same theories advanced in attempts to gain unfettered access to company-wide records across multiple facilities.”

What This Means for Patients

For ordinary Georgians, the issue presents a troubling scenario. Patients who seek treatment at a medical practice, expecting the confidentiality that has traditionally accompanied the doctor-patient relationship, could find their private information disclosed to insurers without their knowledge or consent.

Non-party patients are typically never notified about discovery requests affecting their records. They have no opportunity to appear before a court or raise objections. Their first indication that their private medical information has been disclosed may come after the fact, if they learn about it at all.

“At Delgado Heidari LLC, we believe the law exists to shield the citizen, not to empower the interest of the few,” Heidari said. “We are committed to ensuring that Georgia’s constitutional protections remain an immovable barrier against data harvesting.”

Looking Ahead

The questions raised by patient privacy advocates are straightforward but significant: Can courts compel the production of information that affects thousands of non-parties without providing them notice? Can patients have their private healthcare data disclosed without consent and without an opportunity to object? Does a protective order actually protect anyone if it allows an insurer to keep and use the data forever?

How Georgia’s legal system continues to address these questions will likely have implications not just for current disputes, but for patient privacy throughout the state for years to come.

“At Delgado Heidari LLC, we hold that the law should be a safeguard for the person, not a weapon for the powerful,” Heidari stated. “Our mission is to ensure that the right to be let alone remains a living promise in the Georgia Constitution.”

About the Author

Jennifer Walsh covers legal and regulatory developments affecting healthcare providers and patients. She has written extensively on privacy law and medical ethics.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. The views expressed are those of the author and the legal experts cited, and do not necessarily reflect the positions of any institutions or organizations mentioned. Readers are encouraged to seek professional legal counsel for specific questions or concerns related to patient privacy and medical records.