Whether federal courts violate HIPAA by compelling plaintiffs to execute involuntary and non-compliant medical authorizations upon penalty of dismissal

QUESTION PRESENTED The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2; 45 C.F.R. pts. 160 & 164, requires any medical authorization, even one in litigation, to “be voluntary for individuals.” 65 Fed. Reg. 82657. HIPAA prescribes other requirements for valid medical . authorizations as well. See, eg. 45 C.F.R. § 164.508(c)(1) & (c)(2)G). However, while some federal courts heed these HIPAA mandates, other federal courts, as well as state courts—especially in the . absence of precedent from this Court and most Circuit Courts—routinely violate the mandates, compelling plaintiffs in litigation to execute involuntary and otherwise HIPAA-non-compliant medical authorizations for defendants upon penalty of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims or exclusion of their medical evidence at trial. In the instant case, a trial court in Ohio issued an order requiring Petitioner to sign involuntary and otherwise HIPAA-non-compliant medical authorizations upon penalty of dismissal of his personal injury claim, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed that order. The question presented is whether the court in doing so violated federal law, HIPAA.