green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
69.5 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Harold Glenn Lora v. Medina County Jail Physician, et al.
he district court correctly concluded that such a claim was not cognizable because hipaa does not furnish a private right of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
David Wynter v. Latoya Hughes et al.
to the extent that reasserts a claim under hipaa, the district court correctly concluded that such a claim was not cognizable because hipaa does not furnish a private right of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
David Wynter v. Latoya Hughes et al.
to the extent that reasserts a claim under hipaa, the district court correctly concluded that such a claim was not cognizable because hipaa does not furnish a private right of action.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey L. Smith v. John/Jane Does, et al.
Ind. 2018); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases); Doe v. Board of Tr. of the Univ. of Ill., 429 F.Supp.2d 930, 944 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeremy Knutson v. TK Health, CPL. JOHNSON, J. Watemolen, Nurse Tracey, and Nurse Nadia
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffrey L. Smith v. John/Jane Does, et al.
Ind. 2018); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases); Doe v. Board of Tr. of the Univ. of Ill., 429 F.Supp.2d 930, 944 (N.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heather L. Davis v. Lexington Law Firm and John C. Heath
Third, plaintiff mentions HIPAA violations repeatedly in her complaint, but she cannot bring claims under HIPAA because “HIPAA confers no private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Kreger-Mueller v. City of Middleton Police Dep’t, No. 18-cv-708-jdp, 2018 WL 6421069 , at *5 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cherakei Griffin, by next of kin, next of friend, POA Inez Griffin v. Froedtert Memorial Hospital, Medical College of Wisconsin and United States of America
The court added that a private citizen cannot sue for violations of HIPPA because that statute “does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James Evans v. Jerry Fricker and Christian Lane
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
West v. Jack L Marcus Company
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fenderson v. Finkenbine
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Clemons v. Snyder
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trinwith, Jeffery v. Mayo Clinic O'Clair Administration
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morris v. Snyder
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. May 4, 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wahl v. Snyder
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Montiel 321211 v. Van Buren
Of Army and Air Force, 465 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of HIPAA claim on the grounds that HIPAA provides no private right of action); Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA’s confidentiality provisions.”); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011) (affirming district court’s conclusion that a claim under HIPAA “was not cognizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action”); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Smiley v. Phillip
No. 9 at 7 (citing Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill v. Aramark Correctional Services
Dist., 352 F. App'x 137, 139 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that HIPAA cannot be enforced through either an implied private right of action or through § 1983); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011);Siegler v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:11–cv–170, 2011 WL 1990570 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Woods v. Aramark Correctional Services
Dist., 352 F. App'x 137, 139 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that HIPAA cannot be enforced through either an implied private right of action or through § 1983); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011); Siegler v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:11–cv–170, 2011 WL 1990570 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
King v. Aramark Correctional Services
Dist., 352 F. App'x 137, 139 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that HIPAA cannot be enforced through either an implied private right of action or through § 1983); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011);Siegler v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:11–cv–170, 2011 WL 1990570 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eskin v. Stage
Of Army and Air Force, 465 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of HIPAA claim on the grounds that HIPAA provides no private right of action); Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA’s confidentiality provisions.”); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011) (affirming district court’s conclusion that a claim under HIPAA “was not cognizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action”); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Middlebrook 351947 v. Wellman
Of Army and Air Force, 465 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of HIPAA claim on the grounds that HIPAA provides no private right of action); Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA’s confidentiality provisions.”); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011) (affirming district court’s conclusion that a claim under HIPAA “was not cognizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action”); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th C…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. Chavez
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Middlebrook 351947 v. Pelto
Of Army and Air Force, 465 F. App’x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of HIPAA claim on the grounds that HIPAA provides no private right of action); Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA’s confidentiality provisions.”); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011) (affirming district court’s conclusion that a claim under HIPAA “was not cognizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action”); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th C…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Douglas v. Williams
Ctr., No. 17-5708, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24714 , at *4 (6th Cir. Dec, 7, 2017) (citing Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571 (Sth Cir. 2006) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Maloney
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Patton v. Smith
Ctr., No. 17-5708, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24714 , at *4 (6th Cir. Dec, 7, 2017) (citing Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lipscomb v. Rice
Stated differently, “HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McNaughton, Nathan v. The School District of Amery
However, “HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action.” See Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Kreger-Mueller v. City of Middleton Police Dep’t, No. 18-cv-708-jdp, 2018 WL 6421069 , at *5 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOHNSON v. PURDUE
See Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 523 (7th Cir. 1995) (not finding "any appellate holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to the confidentiality of their medical records" but noting that such an "action might conceivably constitute the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment" "if prison officials disseminated humiliating but penologically irrelevant details of a prisoner's medical history"); cf. Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scheit v. Schmaling
Wis. April 5, 2013) (citing Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamilton v. Brown County Jail Staff
Wis. April 5, 2013) (citing Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin v. West Allis Police Department
But a private citizen cannot sue for violations of HIPPA because that statute “does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Totten
“HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-72 (5th Cir. 2006)); see also Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowes-Northern v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc.
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cr. 2011) (collecting cases).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Welch v. Rehmann
July 14, 2020), citing Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Emrit, Ronald v. Epic Medical Records
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacoby v. Paul
In any case, there is no private cause of action under HIPAA, see Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pitchford v. Metro Nashville Police Department
Tenn. Sept. 5, 2013) (citing Johnson v. Depts. of Army and Air Force, 465 F. App'x 644, 645 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of HIPAA claim on the grounds that HIPAA provides no private right of action); Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App'x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no private right of action for a violation of HIPAA's confidentiality provisions.”); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011) (affirming district court's conclusion that a claim under HIPAA “was not cognizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action”); Wilkerson v. Shins…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Grimes v. Powers
Wis. Apr. 5, 2013) (citing Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bentz v. Kirk
The Seventh Circuit has held that “HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-72 (5th Cir. 2006)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bentz v. Mears
The Seventh Circuit has held that “HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action.” Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-72 (5th Cir. 2006)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
King v. Shulkin
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Micks-Harm v. Nichols
Thomas v. Univ. of Tenn. Health Science Ctr at Memphis, Case No. 17-5708, 2017 WL 9672523 at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2017) (finding that the district court did not err in dismissing claims under HIPAA where no private right of action existed, citing, Bradley v. Pfizer, Inc., 440 F. App'x 805, 809 (11th Cir. 2011); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App'x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53, 59-60 (1st Cir. 2009); Webb v. Smart Document Sols., LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kreger-Mueller, Valerie v. Shiner, Justin
Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011); Franklin v. Wall, No. 12-cv-614, 2013 WL 1399611 , at *2 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steinberg v. CVS Caremark Corp.
See Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam); Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed.Appx. 658, 658 (7th Cir.2011); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir.2010); Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1534 , 179 L.Ed.2d 309 (2011); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 , 1267 n. 4 (10th Cir.2010). . 45 C.F.R. § 164.514 (b)(2)(i) details the specific information that must be removed from PHI to render it de-identified information.
cited
Cited "see"
Andrew R. Beltran v. Nurse Courtney Williams, Southern Health Partners, and Waushara County Jail
See Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing cases).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jermaine D. CARPENTER
v.
Larry J. PHILLIPS, Program Director
v.
Larry J. PHILLIPS, Program Director
No. 10-3176.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
May 4, 2011.
419 F. App'x 658
Jermaine D. Carpenter, Rushville, IL, pro se.
Evans, Hamilton, Rovner.
Cited by 62 opinions | Published
ORDER
Jermaine Carpenter, a pretrial detainee under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging violations under the Constitution and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub.L. No. 104-191,110 Stat. 1936 (1996). We affirm.
Carpenter has been detained at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center without the benefit of any proceedings since his release from prison. He challenges not his detention, but the stigmatizing effects of the stamp that the facility affixes to his outgoing mail — which reads “sexually violent persons treatment center.” Carpenter sued the facility’s program director, Larry Phillips, alleging that the stamp violated his privacy rights under the Constitution and HIPAA. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), explaining that “it could not discern any federal constitutional[*659] right that the stamp violates” and that HIPAA did not provide a private right of action.
Carpenter’s argument on appeal is difficult to pin down, but he seems to argue that the stamp stigmatizes him in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. He says, for instance, that he has been branded as “sexually violent person” even though he “has not had a trial or been committed as a [sexually violent person].” This is essentially a defamation claim, however, and Carpenter’s interest in his reputation, by itself, is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Brawn v. City of Michigan City, 462 F.3d 720, 730-31 (7th Cir.2006); Grennier v. Frank, 453 F.3d 442, 445 (7th Cir.2006). Moreover, there is no suggestion here that the stamp infringes on any recognized liberty interest, such as an interest in employment, see Brown, 462 F.3d at 730, or against the obligations attendant to sex offender registration, see Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211, 1223-24 (10th Cir.2004). Thus, the district court correctly concluded that the allegations did not state a claim.
To the extent that Carpenter reasserts a claim under HIPAA, the district court correctly concluded that such a claim was not congizable because HIPAA does not furnish a private right of action. Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-72 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir.2010); Seaton v. May-berg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct.1534, 179 L.Ed.2d 309 (2011); Wilkerson v. Shin-seki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.