Last week, three employees at Tucson’s University Medical Center were fired for accessing the confidential patient medical records of the victims of the high-profile shooting that included Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The hospital stated that it discharged the employees in accordance with its “zero-tolerance” policy for breaches to confidential health information.
These ex-employees will almost certainly seek unemployment benefits, which leads us to wonder what would happen if a similar claim was filed here in Minnesota, where claimants are generally entitled to benefits unless they were terminated for “employment misconduct.” Generally, one-time offenses are usually not considered severe enough to be viewed as “employment misconduct.” However, a recent case from the Minnesota Court of Appeals suggests that violating a zero-tolerance policy for improper accessing of confidential health information would meet this test and would result in a rejection of a claim for unemployment benefits.
In Bingham v. Allina Health System, A10-872 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2011), Allina had a “no-tolerance” policy prohibiting its employees from “inappropriate access or sharing of patient information.” Nevertheless, Bingham helped a co-worker access her daughter’s lab test results. Despite her clear violation of the policy, the Unemployment Law Judge (“ULJ”) found no misconduct because Bingham “reasonably believed” the co-worker was entitled to the information, and she “did not otherwise make inappropriate use of the information obtained.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, explaining,
We conclude that the ULJ’s misconduct determination is contrary to both [Allina’s] policy and case law involving disclosure of medical information . . . . The ULJ committed an error of law by concluding that [Bingham’s] accessing patient information did not amount to misconduct.
Bottom Line
This case seems to recognize the legitimacy of zero-tolerance policies as a tool for health care employers in their compliance with patient confidentiality obligations imposed by to state and federal medical privacy statutes, such as HIPAA. Employers should be mindful, however, that this standard just relates to whether terminated employees are entitled to unemployment benefits. The actual termination decision will likely be judged according to different standards, especially in a Union setting where “just cause” principles typically apply.