Huse, Hayden ( 2015 )

PD-0433-14
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 1/14/2015 8:14:08 AM
Accepted 1/14/2015 9:45:55 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
Officers
President
Emmett Harris, Uvalde
January 14, 2015
President-Elect
Samuel E. Bassett, Austin
1st Vice President
Hon. Abel Acosta, Clerk
January 14, 2015
John A. Convery, San Antonio
2nd Vice President
David E. Moore, Longview Court of Criminal Appeals
Treasurer
Mark Snodgrass, Lubbock Post Office Box 12308
Secretary
Kerri Anderson-Donica, Corsicana Austin, Texas 78711-2308
General Counsel
Patricia J. Cummings, Austin
Editor, Voice for the Defense
Michael Gross, San Antonio Subject: State v. Huse; PD-0433-14
Editor, Significant Decisions Report
Kathleen Nacozy
Immediate Past President
Bobby Mims, Tyler
Executive Director
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Joseph A. Martinez, Austin
Directors
Susan E. Anderson, Dallas
I am writing to the Court on behalf of the Texas Criminal Defense
Marjorie Bachman, Austin
Heather J. Barbieri, Plano
Rick Berry, Marshall
Lawyers Association (“TCDLA”), the largest state association for criminal
Fred C. Brigman, San Angelo
Clint Broden, Dallas
Jim Darnell Sr., El Paso defense attorneys in the nation. TCDLA started more than 40 years ago as
Nicole DeBorde, Houston
Emily Detoto, Houston
Donald H. Flanary, San Antonio
Stephen Gordon, Haltom City
a small, nonprofit association and has grown into a state-of-the-art
Deandra M. Grant, Richardson
Michael C. Gross, San Antonio
Melissa L. Hannah, Lufkin organization, providing assistance, support and continuing education to its
Theodore “Tip” Hargrove, San Angelo
Jo Ann Jacinto, El Paso
Steve A. Keathley, Corsicana
Laurie L. Key, Lubbock
members. TCDLA represents the interests and views of criminal defense
Jeanette Kinard, Austin
Adam L. Kobs, San Antonio
Michael A. McDougal, Conroe lawyers across the state, both in the legislature and before the courts as
George R. Milner lll, Dallas
Angela J. Moore, San Antonio
David P. O’Neil, Huntsville
Anthony C. Odiorne, Burnet
amicus curiae in important criminal and civil cases. As required by Rule
Stephanie K. Patten, Fort Worth
Oscar O. Pena, Laredo
Bruce Ponder, El Paso 11, Tex.R.App.Pro., neither TCDLA nor any of the attorneys representing
Carole J. Powell, El Paso
Bennie Ray, Austin
Ray Rodriguez, Laredo
Sarah E. Roland, Denton
TCDLA have received any fee or other compensation for preparing this
John Hunter Smith, Sherman
Edward A. Stapleton, Brownsville
Clay B. Steadman, Kerrville brief.
George Taylor, San Antonio
Gary Alan Udashen, Dallas
Oscar Vega, McAllen
Coby Waddill, Denton
In the above captioned case, the Court has granted review on two
Jani Wood, Houston
Associate Directors
separate questions:
Roberto Balli, Laredo
Robert Barrera, San Antonio
Curtis Barton, Huntsville 1. After State v. Hardy, does a citizen have standing to
Michael Head, Athens
Susan Kelly Johnston, Waco
Bradley Lollar, Dallas
challenge the process by which his medical records
Louis Elias Lopez, El Paso
Hiram McBeth, Dallas
are obtained?
Audrey Moorehead, Dallas
Simon Purnell, Corpus
Christi 2. Must the State comply with federal requirements
Jeremy Rosenthal, McKinney
David Ryan, Houston
Frank Sellers, Lubbock
under the Health Insurance Portability and
Monique Sparks, Houston
Courtney Stamper, Waxahachie Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to obtain a
Mark Thiessen, Houston
citizen's medical records, and if it fails to do so, is
TCDLA founded in 1971
there any remedy?
6808 Hill Meadow Drive | Austin, TX 78736 | (512) 478-2514 p | (512) 469-9107 f | www.tcdla.com
State v. Huse; PD-0433-13 -- Amicus Curiae Letter Brief Submitted by TCDLA -- Page 2
Please accept this letter as a brief for TCDLA as Amicus Curiae, and advise the members
of the Court that, although TCDLA takes no specific position on the second ground, it strongly
believes the answer to the first ground is “yes.” We urge the Court to find that, in light of the
adoption of HIPAA by the Congress of the United States, it is clear that a citizen does have
standing to challenge the process by which his medical records are obtained.
TCDLA is aware that, in State v. Hardy, 963 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Cr.App. 1997), the Court
held that there is no expectation of privacy in these type of medical records (results of blood
tests). Indeed, relying on Hardy (and other cases), the Court of Appeals held that there is no
expectation of privacy in one’s blood-alcohol test results when the blood is obtained by hospital
personnel after a traffic accident for medical purposes. Thus, the Court of Appeals wrote,
“Appellee lacks standing to assert that using a grand jury subpoena to obtain his blood results
constituted an unreasonable search and seizure.” State v. Huse, 07-12-00383-CR (Tex.App. -
Amarillo; March 6, 2014).
In Hardy, however, Judge Price led a four judge minority in dissenting. He argued that
“society does recognize one’s expectation of privacy in medical records because society’s
expects a physicians to make affirmative efforts to ensure the confidentiality of the client’s
records.” TCDLA agrees with Judge Price and his fellow dissenters in Hardy.
The distinction between the expectation of privacy one has in his or her body vis-a-vis the
drawing of blood and the expectation of privacy one has in the results of the testing of that
blood is a distinction without difference. The core question is whether society recognizes one’s
expectation that his or her medical records will be kept confidential. TCDLA would suggest that
State v. Huse; PD-0433-13 -- Amicus Curiae Letter Brief Submitted by TCDLA -- Page 3
the passage of HIPPA by the United States Congress, the representatives of the people, has
answered this question.
It must be noted that, although HIPAA is at the heart of the second issue, it was not in
effect at the time of Hardy. The initial date for covered entities, such as the hospital in this case,
to comply with the privacy standards of HIPPA was April 14, 2003. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.534
(2002). The initial determination to be made is whether HIPAA overruled Hardy. Appellee’s
brief suggests that it has (P. 22 of 41), while the State’s brief suggests it has not (P. 20). TCDLA
agrees with Appellee.
TCDLA is aware that several of the Courts of Appeals have held that HIPAA does not
preempt Hardy. See, e.g., Kirsch v. State, 276 S.W.3d 579, 586-587 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st]
2008), aff’d on other grounds, Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Cr.App. 2010);1 Murray
v. State, 245 S.W.3d 37, 42 (Tex. App. - Austin 2007). Nevertheless, it is clear that HIPAA
trumps Hardy, at least in a general sense.
Pursuant to HIPAA, individually identifiable medical information cannot be disclosed by
covered entities without the consent of the individual unless disclosure is expressly permitted by
HIPAA. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.502; U.S. v. Zamora, 408 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.Tex. 2006);
Kennemur v. State, 280 S.W.3d 305, 312 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2008). Disclosure is only
permitted without authorization from the individual in several limited circumstances:
1
Judge Price filed a dissenting opinion in Kirsch and was joined by Judge Meyers. The dissent is not relevant
to the issue now before the Court.
State v. Huse; PD-0433-13 -- Amicus Curiae Letter Brief Submitted by TCDLA -- Page 4
A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the extent
that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies
with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law.
45 C.F.R. § 164.512 (emphasis added).
Thus, a “covered entity” may only deliver one’s medical records when there is either
consent of the entity’s patient or the entity is compelled to do so by some legal process.
Accordingly, there can be no other way to interpret the limited authority of a “covered entity”
to divulge medical records than to say that there is a “reasonable” expectation of privacy in
one’s medical record.
TCDLA believes that a challenge to the manner in which the State obtained one’s medical
records from the third party “covered entity” would be similar to the right of a passenger in an
automobile to challenge the legality of the search in certain circumstances. See, Brendlin v.
California, 551 U.S. 249, 251 (2007), in which the Supreme Court held that the passenger of
a vehicle has standing to contest the legality of the traffic stop that results in his own detention.
See also Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63-64 (Tex.Cr.App. 2004), in which the Court of
Criminal Appeals found that the defendant had standing under Wong Sun v. United States, 371
U.S. 471 (1963), to complain about the seizure of a controlled substance from his companion’s
bra, because it was “come at by” the exploitation of an illegal detention.
Thus, the answer to the first ground on which review was granted clearly has to be that,
because of the reasonable expectation of privacy demonstrated in HIPAA, a defendant does
have standing to challenge the process by which his or her medical records were obtained. To
State v. Huse; PD-0433-13 -- Amicus Curiae Letter Brief Submitted by TCDLA -- Page 5
the extent that Hardy would suggest that there is never standing to mount such a challenge,
HIPAA has preempted Hardy.
Conclusion
To the extent it would be interpreted to say a defendant never has standing to challenge
the manner in which his or her medical records were obtained, HIPAA has preempted Hardy.
A citizen has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has the right to expect that there will be
full compliance with HIPAA before his or her medical records are turned over to the authorities
by the “covered entity” with whom he or she has a professional relationship.
Respectfully submitted,
Emmett Harris Patricia J. Cummings
Attorney at Law and President of TCDLA Attorney at Law and General Counsel for TCDLA
625 Cenizo Blvd 6808 Hill Meadow Drive
Uvalde, Texas 78801 Austin, Texas 78736
Tel. 210-422-7055 Tel. (512) 478-2514
eMail: emmettharrislaw@gmail.com eMail: pcummings@tcdla.com
State Bar Card No. 09092000 Texas State Bar Card No. 05227500
Gena Blount Bunn Angela Moore
Holmes & Moore, P.L.L.C. Attorney at Law
110 West Methvin Street 310 South St. Marys Street, Suite 1830
Longview, Texas 75601 San Antonio, Texas 778205
Tel. (903) 758-2200 Tel. (210) 364-0013
eMail: gbunn@holmesmoore.com eMail: amoorelaw@aol.com
State Bar Card No. 00790323 State Bar Card No. 14320110
____________________________________
David A. Schulman
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 783
Austin, Texas 78767-0783
Tel. 512-474-4747
Fax: 512-532-6282
eMail: zdrdavida@davidschulman.com
State Bar Card No. 17833400
Attorneys for TCDLA
State v. Huse; PD-0433-13 -- Amicus Curiae Letter Brief Submitted by TCDLA -- Page 6
Certificate of Compliance and Delivery
This is to certify that: (1) this document, created using WordPerfect™ X7 software, contains
1326 words, excluding those items permitted by Rule 9.4 (i)(1), Tex.R.App.Pro., and complies
with Rules 9.4 (i)(2)(B) and 9.4 (i)(3), Tex.R.App.Pro.; and (2) on January 14, 2015, a true and
correct copy of the above and foregoing “Brief for Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
as Amicus Curiae” was transmitted via the eService function on the State’s eFiling portal, to
Jeffrey S. Ford (jford@co.lubbock.tx.us), counsel of record for the State of Texas, as well as
Chuck Lanehart (chucklanehart@lubbockcriminaldefense.com) and Charles Blevin
(charles@attorneyinlubbock.com), counsel of record for Appellee, Hayden Huse.
_______________________________________
David A. Schulman