Class Action Claims UPMC Shared New Mothers’ Private Medical Info. with State Agency

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Out of Pennsylvania federal court comes a proposed class action lawsuit filed against University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) that claims the hospital operator unlawfully shared patients’ private medical information with co-defendant Allegheny County.

The named plaintiff and a proposed class member, both mothers who had their babies at hospitals operated by UPMC, claim they were subjected to “highly intrusive, humiliating and coercive child abuse investigations” after UPMC shared “unconfirmed” and incorrectly reported drug use information with the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (AC-CYF). According to the case, the defendants intruded on the mothers’ privacy despite being aware that the information supplied to AC-CYF was both confidential and “provided no basis” for suspicion that the women’s children were at risk.

The plaintiff claims that after being admitted to Magee Women’s Hospital for the birth of her third child, hospital staff performed without her knowledge and consent a urine test that flagged a “false positive” for marijuana use. According to the case, the test was not to be used for “non-medical purposes” and was to be regarded as “provisional and uncertain” until “definitive testing” could be performed.

The lawsuit claims, however, that UPMC reported the urine test result to AC-CYF despite being well aware that one “unconfirmed” drug test was likely to be incorrect, not to mention that the plaintiff’s baby was healthy and had tested negative for any controlled substances. The plaintiff claims AC-CYF then “interrogated” her while she was still in the hospital, performed multiple home inspections, interviewed her husband and young daughter, solicited medical information from her children’s pediatrician and dentist, interviewed her daughter’s school counselor, and subjected her to a second drug test and psychological evaluation performed by a non-profit. According to the case, AC-CYF had “no reason” to suspect that the plaintiff’s newborn son was in danger of being neglected or abused and based its investigation solely on the confidential medical information shared by UPMC.

“There was no medical necessity, reason or justification for UPMC to report any of [the plaintiff’s] confidential medical information to any governmental agency, including AC-CYF,” the complaint says.

Echoing the plaintiff’s allegations, a proposed class member claims in the lawsuit that after she gave birth to her child at UPMC Mercy, hospital staff incorrectly reported to AC-CYF that the woman had admitted to marijuana use early in her pregnancy. In truth, the woman claims, she “merely acknowledged” during intake questions that she had used marijuana before becoming pregnant and had then “quit everything.” The case claims UPMC performed urine drug tests on both the woman and her newborn without the mother’s knowledge or consent, with the tests ultimately coming back negative. The lawsuit alleges that the mother was never told that the answers to her intake questions could be used as a basis for reporting confidential medical information to a third party.

Following UPMC’s report, AC-CYF subjected the proposed class member to multiple home inspections, questioned her family regarding her parenting methods, offered “unsolicited and unnecessary” parenting advice, and obtained medical information from her children’s pediatrician, the suit says.

The lawsuit, noting that UPMC has been the subject of previous litigation over similar allegations, claims the actions described in this case are a matter of policy for the defendants. The plaintiff claims she was told that UPMC reports all positive drug tests to AC-CYF despite not being privileged or legally required to do so and AC-CYF, in turn, always opens an investigation after receiving confidential medical information from UPMC, the suit alleges. The case argues that the defendants’ actions have violated proposed class members’ right to physician-patient confidentiality, as well as various privacy and due process rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Further, the suit claims the women’s right to equal protection was also violated given the children’s fathers were never subjected to any drug tests.

The two mothers in the lawsuit claim they only cooperated with the AC-CYF’s “baseless” investigations under the “implicit and terrifying threat” that they could lose custody of their children if they refused. The case argues that the defendants’ actions “tarnished” the women’s “essential and irreplaceable first moments” with their babies and “turned the joyous experience of bringing a new baby home into a nightmare.”

Originally filed in state court, the lawsuit has been removed to Pennsylvania’s Western District.