The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Federal Prosecutors Dropping HIPAA Charges Against Dr. Ethan Haim, Stemming from Youth Gender Medicine Disclosures
From the Justice Department's press release about the charges in June:
A Houston doctor has been indicted for obtaining protected individual health information for patients that were not under his care and without authorization, announced Alamdar S. Hamdani….
The four-count indictment alleges Haim obtained personal information including patient names, treatment codes and the attending physician from Texas Children's Hospital's (TCH) electronic system without authorization. He allegedly obtained this information under false pretenses and with intent to cause malicious harm to TCH.
According to the indictment, Haim was a resident at Baylor College of Medicine and had previous rotations at TCH as part of his residency.
In April 2023, Haim allegedly requested to re-activate his login access at TCH to access pediatric patients not under his care. The indictment alleges he obtained unauthorized access to personal information of pediatric patients under false pretenses and later disclosed it to a media contact.
From the Free Press (Tom Bartlett):
Haim decided to tell the media what was happening at his hospital. He knew taking a public stance on such a divisive issue could undermine his medical career before it really started, so he was determined to remain anonymous. He told me he didn't present his findings to hospital administrators because it was obvious to him that what was happening had the approval of higher-ups.
Eventually, Haim contacted Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist and journalist. Rufo published a story in May 2023, not naming Haim, but calling him a "whistleblower" at Texas Children's. It was illustrated with heavily redacted versions of the patients' records. (Shortly after, the Texas legislature voted to pass its law banning transition treatments for minors.) …
The records Haim disclosed include the ages of patients, some as young as 11 and 12. They also include their diagnoses and brief treatment summaries—most were getting puberty blockers inserted. To conceal the patients' identities, Haim stripped out their names, birth dates, and other identifying information before sending the records to Rufo. (Haim points out the irony that in the indictment against him, the initials of several patients are listed, which means the government published more identifying information than he did.) …
Haim believes he wasn't indicted for violating patient privacy, which he says he would never do. Instead, he thinks the Justice Department intended to silence him and, in so doing, send a message to other would-be whistleblowers.
The joint motion to dismiss the indictment offers no details, other than saying:
The United States … and the defendant, Eithan David Haim, hereby move this Court for an order dismissing the Second Superseding Indictment and all open counts with prejudice.
But presumably the Trump Administration had a different view on the matter than did the Biden Administration.
UPDATE 1/24/2025, 4:51 pm: The court has signed off on the dismissal, so the charges have been dismissed with prejudice.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68860918/united-states-v-haim/
The specific crime charged is 42 USC 1320d-6(a)(2), (b)(2), and (b)(3):
Glad the charges were dismissed, but I would have preferred to see him unambiguously prevail in court.
I think he just did!
Not to those with TDS.
“ But presumably the Trump Administration had a different view on the matter than did the Biden Administration.”
It’s possible that the timing is coincidental. The case has had problems.
The Biden DoJ booted the lead prosecutor in November for conflicts of interest.
Good article. There are some things to add - for example, the current indictment does not charge him with disclosing the information (which, if the article is true, probably won't constitute criminal HIPAA violation), only the obtaining part.
You added an extra quotation mark to the link, so it won't work (without manually removing it).
Whoops. That’s what I get for trying to link with my phone.
Haim is crediting Sen Josh Hawley and Trump for the DOJ dropping charges:
Hawley:
"Following my call this morning, I am delighted to report the Trump DOJ is now moving to DISMISS this illegitimate prosecution"
"There are no words to express our gratitude!!!
Senator Hawley, you did it!!!!"
https://x.com/EithanHaim/status/1882903547781763333?t=9dgSfswvwQC_RARFvW4h2A&s=19
The indictment does appear to allege a (b)(2) offense. (Of course, it's a document crafted by the prosecution; it has to.) I'm not sure what the defense's argument is. As to (b)(3), there's the question of whether the defendant has necessary mens rea, which I assume the prosecution has evidence of.
The statute doesn't seem to exempt whistleblowing or news reports. Such exemptions could be unconstitutional as content-based exemptions of conduct regulations under Barr.
The defense argument is that the conduct didn’t actually violate the statute. The prosecution is correct that in the federal system, this is not generally the type of argument that can be raised prior to trial, so in that regard I think the judge was correct to deny the motion.
Yes. Which is why the original prosecution was illegitimate (the amended complaint/indictment not being actually a crime, or a crime worth prosecuting).
Which is why the dismissal is just.
Hmm, could you tell me which element of the offense is disputed (as to (b)(2))? As I understand it, subsequent disclosure is not relevant for that provision - even if the defendant did not disclose, the offense was complete when he obtained the information.
Perhaps the best argument is the "without authorization" language. This case has facts similar to Van Buren. I doubt, however, that the legal analysis in that case applies here; CFAA was enacted with computers in mind, and "authorization" there had a technical meaning. Here, however, it appears that "without authorization" is used in the generic sense.
IIUC Haim claims that he didn't access the information under false pretenses because there is evidence that he was treating patients at TCH during the relevant timeframe.
And of course, the government hasn't proven its allegations. For example, I don't know if there's any evidence, or at least admissible evidence, that the patients at issue weren't under his care.
"But presumably the Trump Administration had a different view on the matter than did the Biden Administration."
Hilarious. Thank you for the laugh.
I’m glad the DOJ used its discretion to drop the charges. But I really think conduct like this - whistleblowing where confidential information was leaked but there’s zero reason to believe anyone was harmed - should be protected by the First Amendment and not criminal.
I believe the final charges were more about the unauthorized obtaining of medical records rather than disclosing them.
Trump lied. He said we would get tired of all the winning. I'm not tired yet!
Dr. Haim's first name is Eithan, as reflected in the case caption. The DOJ press release misspelled it as Ethan.