PHILADELPHIA – A trio of patients from a Montgomery County fertility clinic have launched class action litigation against the facility to pay for a lifetime of identity theft protection, after more than 37,000 patients had their personal and health information hacked due to alleged company failures.
Simona Opris, Adrian Adam and Britney Richardson (on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated) first filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on June 1 versus Sincera Reproductive Medicine (formerly known as and operating as “Abington Reproductive Medicine, P.C.”), of Abington.
(The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 9.)
“Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of individuals, patients of or people that are customers of or have their records at Sincera whose PII and/or PHI was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Sincera’s network server, which Sincera states occurred between Aug. 10, 2020 and Sept. 13, 2020,” the suit says.
“Despite that Sincera became aware of the data breach by Sept. 11, 2020, it failed to notify plaintiffs and the putative Class Members within 60 days as required by law. Notably, Sincera failed to notify plaintiffs of the data breach for more than eight months from its discovery of the same.”
In the one-month time period spanning August to September 2020, more than 37,000 patients had their personal data stolen.
That data included names, social security numbers, dates of birth, medical records or patient account numbers, health insurance information and treatment or clinical information, such as diagnosis, medications, provider, type of treatment, or treatment locations, the class action states.
The plaintiffs allege that Sincera failed to implement and follow basic security procedures – including its own policies – to protect its patients’ personal and health information.
Opris, Adam and Richardson all say that they received a written letter from Sincera on May 13 of this year, informing them that their personal information may have been accessed or exposed.
“As a direct and proximate result of Sincera’s inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ PII and/or PHI has been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals,” per the suit.
“Plaintiffs and Class Members are now at a significantly increased risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, plaintiffs and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy protecting themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes.”
Opris, Adam, and Richardson want to represent anyone in the country whose personal and health information was compromised in the Sincera data breach.
In a July 16 motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendant counters that the suit fails to state a claim.
“Plaintiffs allege that defendant was the victim of a ransomware attack, defendant suffered IT disruptions as a result of the attack, and that they were patients at unidentified facilities of defendant at some unidentified time. Plaintiffs do not claim that they have been the victims of identity theft, actual or attempted. Plaintiffs do not allege any other economic injury. The complaint accordingly warrants dismissal,” the motion stated.
For counts of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, declaratory judgment, the plaintiffs are seeking various reliefs:
• An order certifying the Class under Rule 1702 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and naming plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the Class;
• An order finding in favor of plaintiffs and the Class on all counts asserted herein;
• Compensatory, statutory, treble, and/or punitive damages in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact;
• An order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief;
• Declaratory and injunctive relief as described herein;
• Awarding plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses;
• Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and
• Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper, as well as a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Gary F. Lynch and Kelly K. Iverson of Carlson Lynch in Pittsburgh, plus Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Golomb & Honik, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Nipun J. Patel and Mark S. Melodia of Holland & Knight, in Philadelphia and New York City.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03072
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210502726
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com