United States v. Zhou - 678 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2012)

Rule:

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996's misdemeanor criminal penalty applies to an individual who knowingly and in violation of this part obtains individually identifiable health information relating to an individual. 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320d-6(a)(2). The word and unambiguously indicates that there are two elements of a § 1320d-6(a)(2) violation: (1) knowingly obtaining individually identifiable health information relating to an individual; and (2) obtaining that information in violation of Title 42 United States Code Chapter 7, Subchapter XI, Part C. Thus, the term knowingly applies only to the act of obtaining the health information.

Facts:

Defendant-Appellant Huping Zhou, a former research assistant at the University of California at Los Angeles Health System (UHS), accessed patient records without authorization after his employment was terminated. In an information, the government charged him with violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320d-6(a)(2), which imposed a misdemeanor penalty on “a person who knowingly and in violation of this part obtained individually identifiable health information relating to an individual.” Defendant moved to dismiss the information because it did not allege that defendant knew that the statute prohibited him from obtaining the health information. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. On appeal, defendant argued that the word “knowingly,” as used in § 1320d-6(a), modified “in violation of this part.”

Issue:

Should the Information against the defendant be dismissed for its failure to allege that the defendant knew that obtaining the health information was illegal? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court noted that under the defendant’s interpretation of the statute, a defendant was guilty only if he knew that obtaining the personal healthcare information was illegal. According to the court, the defendant’s argument contradicted the plain language of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The plain text of 42 U.S.C.S. § 1320d-6(a)(2) was not limited to defendants who knew that their actions were illegal. Rather, the misdemeanor applied to defendants who knowingly obtained individually identifiable health information relating to an individual, and obtained that information in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The word “and” unambiguously indicated that there were two elements of a § 1320d-6(a)(2) violation. If the statute did not contain “and”, defendant’s argument might be more persuasive. The court averred that the term “knowingly” applied only to the act of obtaining the health information.