Legal News

Ct: Emotional Distress Not Enough to Recover for Privacy Act Violations

By Dan Slater

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker speaks at the St. Francis Hotel, March 22, 2006, in San Francisco. (AP/San Francisco Daily Journal, S.Todd Rogers)

Based on a recent court ruling, the majority of violations of the Privacy Act — a law that prohibits the government from disclosing a person’s medical records without the person’s consent — may not not yield damages.

Take the case of Stanmore Cooper, a recreational pilot who became caught up in a government investigation, known as Operation Safe Pilot, designed to ferret out, among other things, medically unfit pilots who were evading detection by the FAA. Cooper was one of 40 pilots to be indicted in connection with the investigation. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of lying to the FAA about his HIV-positive status, which later became public as a result.

Cooper sued the government for violating the Privacy Act. As part of the investigation, the investigative arms of two federal agencies — the Social Security Administration and the Department of Transportation — improperly shared Cooper’s medical info, a big no-no. But while U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, of the Northern District of California, ruled that a Privacy Act violation occurred, the judge held that Cooper wasn’t entitled to recovery because Cooper had “presented no evidence of pecuniary damages,” just mental distress. Here’s Judge Walker’s opinion.

The ruling adds to an existing divide among federal courts over whether plaintiffs who have suffered emotional distress—but no financial harm—can recover damages when the government illegally discloses their private medical info. Judge Walker sided with Eleventh Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has said emotional distress is enough for damages.

“The vast majority of Privacy Act violations probably fall into the category of situations where there’s no economic harm,” Raymond A. Cardozo, one of Cooper’s lawyers at Reed Smith in San Francisco, told the Law Blog. Therefore, says Cardozo, it’s peculiar that Congress would allow citizens to sue the government for privacy violations, and yet exempt the vast majority of violations from any accountability.

The government attorneys in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on August 28, 2008 (boomark / email).