Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

UMCPP and PHS sued for allegedly mishandling employee's HIV status

An HIV-infected hospital employee whose medical records were allegedly breached by a coworker recently sued the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro and its parent company Princeton Healthcare System for privacy violations and workplace discrimination.

UMCPP provides medical services not available to University members at McCosh Health Center, such as alcohol detoxification and intensive care. UMCPP was formerly sponsored in part by the University.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plaintiff in the case, who has been employed as a housekeeping aide at the UMCPP since approximately 1988, filed the complaint in early April in Mercer County Superior Court, naming the UMCPP and its parent company PHS as defendants.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff was hospitalized in May 2013 in PHS, during which time several documents were created with references to her HIV positive status.

In April 2014, the plaintiff received a letter from a Compliance and Privacy Officer in PHS stating that one of her colleagues, who was unidentified in the correspondence, had accessed her medical records on August 2013, according to the complaint.

The letter also referenced a subsequent investigation with “appropriate action” being taken against the colleague. The plaintiff’s complaint mentions that it is uncertain why PHS decided to notify the plaintiff of the breach months after the incident.

The brief further stated that the plaintiff alleged that “upon learning of the accessing of her HIV-related records, the Plaintiff was caused to suffer severe emotional distress and embarrassment at work.”

“The Plaintiff has seen and heard co-workers gossiping about her and her HIV status, and has been treated with hostility from her co-workers and superiors from the time she became aware of the unlawful disclosure to the present, inclusive of nitpicking and being forced to perform duties outside of her job description,” the brief alleged.

ADVERTISEMENT

This sequence of events constitutes a violation of the New Jersey AIDS Assistance Act, according to the brief.

The plaintiff did not respond to requests for comment.

Amy Stutzke, the plaintiff’s attorney, did not respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson at Princeton Healthcare System deferred comment to a statement.

Subscribe
Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“We take the privacy of our patients’ medical records very seriously and comply with all state and federal laws regarding patient privacy,” the statement read.

According to the statement, every employee in PHS receives education on patient confidentiality during orientation and also participates in an annual education event about related issues.

Furthermore, PHS also conducts regular audits of medical records to determine if there has been unauthorized access, the statement read.

“If we suspect a breach of confidentiality, we conduct a thorough investigation. If we confirm that a breach has occurred, disciplinary action is implemented up to and including termination of employment,” the statement explained.

In addition to the privacy violation, the plaintiff alleged that PHS failed to accommodate the plaintiff’s disability related to her adhesive capsulitis, which is a medical condition that affects her left shoulder and prevented her from performing activities including reaching above her head to dust shelves.

The treatment constitutes discrimination, the original complaint alleged.

According to the brief, after the plaintiff was allegedly placed on temporary leave due to physical constraints, she sought a medical examination and was recommended by a medical professional to be placed on “light duty” at work. After cleared by the medical professional and filing for restriction requests, however, the plaintiff was allegedly told by PHS that she could not return to work “unless she had approval from her doctor that she was able to work without restriction.”

“Several insinuations to ‘retiring’ or ‘collecting disability’” were made to the plaintiff, the complaint read.

The spokesperson for PHS did not provide additional comments about the alleged workplace discrimination.