Personal medical information, medical records patient information are highly sensitive and confidential documents that should be safeguarded against unnecessary disclosure without the patient’s consent at all costs. The information contained in a patient’s medical records is private, and may not be disclosed without permission, save a few exceptional circumstances.

What Laws Protect Patient Medical Information?

There are a number of federal laws in place that are designed to protect the privacy of patient medical records, such as the:

• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Section 160, and 164A and E),
• HIPPA Security Rule (45 C.F.R. Section 160, and 164A and C), and
• HIPPA Breach Notification Rule (45 CFR Sections 164.400-414).

California additionally offers protection for patient medical records through California Civil Code Sections 56-56.37, also referred to as the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Under California law, a patient’s personal medical information, i.e., any individually identifiable information that is kept in physical or electronic form, is protected from unauthorized disclosure by health care providers, health care insurance providers, pharmaceutical companies, and other entities with access to this sensitive information, unless a court order demands such disclosure.

Medical information can include information concerning a patient’s medical history, mental health history, their physical or mental condition, or any course of treatment they are on. Individually identifiable information can include information such as a patient’s name, contact information, Social Security number or any other information that can be combined with publicly available information in order to identify the patient.

Patient Consent To Disclosure

Many times, a patient is referred to a specialist who requires copies of the patient’s medical records. However, the patient’s current doctor is not allowed to provide the patient’s medical records to the specialist without first obtaining the consent of the patient. If a patient wants to consent to the disclosure of their personal medical information, the patient must give permission in writing.

The requirements for providing patient consent to the sharing, releasing or disclosure of confidential medical records are outlined in California Civil Code Sections 56.11, which requires that the patient’s consent must be:

In writing and signed by the patient, the patient’s legal representative, or the beneficiary or personal representative of the patient (if the patient is deceased).

• Specific as to the permissible uses of the disclosed information, including detailing any restrictions or limitations on the disclosure of the patient’s medical records.
• Clear as to who is authorized to release/disclose the medical information concerning the patient, and must be clear as to who is the authorized recipient of the released/disclosed medical information.
• Clear as to the duration that the authorization is valid for.

Remedies For Unauthorized Disclosure

When a patient’s medical information is illegally disclosed or obtained without permission, the patient has a cause of action under California law. When the patient can show that the unauthorized disclosure amounted to some economic loss or a personal injury to the patient, then the patient has grounds for a suit. If you believe your information was disclosed without your authorization in writing and you have been damaged, contact our firm right away to speak with an experienced Los Angeles business attorney who can determine your rights and options.

We also advise businesses on how to substantially limit their liability and ensure their business policies conform to both state and federal statutes on a daily basis. Contact us if you have been accused of disclosing a patient or employee’s medical information without permission, or are unsure if your business is in full compliance with HIPPA and current employment laws.

For quite some time the paparazzi in California has relied upon the use of drones – which are unmanned, aerial devices that are operated remotely by a user or operator – to capture photographs of celebrities from afar, usually by piloting the unmanned drones over the private property owned by the celebrities to capture the shot. A new California bill aims to provide celebrities with a little more privacy by prohibiting the use of drones over private property, the LATimes reports.

Drone regulation has been a high-popularized issue in the area of technology law lately, especially in California.  Not only have the paparazzi made quite a bit of use out of drones for photography purposes, but others have taken up flying the contraptions to take photos of the wildfires that have been ravaging California.  The drones have even interfered with firefighting efforts in the recent past.  There have also been problems with drones being used to transport contraband into prison environments. However, many civilians enjoy drone manipulation as a hobby, and do not use their drones to break the law.

New Bill Puts Stop to Paparazzi Invasion of Celebrities’ Privacy

The bill, AB 856, deems flying a drone onto the private property of another for the purpose of taking photographs of video to be a physical invasion of privacy that will not be tolerated.  While previous versions of the bill would have made flying a drone within 350 feet over private property without consent a trespassing violation, the final version of the bill, which will be signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the upcoming weeks, is not as extreme.

Trespass is codified in California Penal Code Section 602 et seq. and already covers a variety of very specific trespassing violations.  Adding another trespass provision for the use of drones to take pictures of someone else, particularly a celebrity, would add more provisions to the already jumbled and dense area of trespass crimes.

The governor rejected many earlier versions of the drone bill as they would have created new crimes by adding new trespassing provisions to the law along with new punishments. In addition, making drone flying for photography purposes would unduly place restraints on a burgeoning drone industry. Rather, the new bill sets out to redefine the existing law to better incorporate invasions of privacy committed with a drone camera.

What Are The Existing Laws on Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of privacy is based in tort law, and in California case law has established four tort actions based on invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion into private places, conversations or other matters,
2. Public disclosures of private facts,
3. Presentation of a person to the public in a false light, and
4. Appropriation of another’s image or personality.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 214 (1998). The use of drones to take unauthorized photos of celebrities in their homes and on their personal property would be an intrusion into a private place and under California Civil Code Section 1708.8, a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when they knowingly enter the land of another person without permission for the purpose of capturing any form of visual image of the person whose privacy is being invaded.

This bill is yet another example of how the law must catch up at times to address the legal implications a new technology presents, and it highlights the importance of obtaining proper legal advisement while navigating the complicated world of technology.

If you are working with a new technology or other product/service and do not yet fully understand the legalities and implications of your venture, it is especially important to retain an experienced business attorney for advisement on how to limit your liability and protect any intellectual property rights.

Recently, Total Recall Technologies, a Hawaii-based company, filed a lawsuit in a California U.S. District Court claiming fraud, breach, and other allegations against Oculus VR Inc. The lawsuit involves reality glasses, a product that has been touted by Oculus VR over the past three years, according to news reports. In 2014, social media giant Facebook purchased Oculus for a reported $2 billion. Now, Total Recall Technologies alleges that patented information from the company was taken by Oculus founder Palmer Luckey during the time he was employed by the company to develop a prototype head-mounted display product.

Luckey signed a confidentiality agreement, according to the complaint which requests punitive and compensatory damages from Oculus. The lawsuit also alleges that Luckey developed the converted information in order to market the Oculus Rift, his own virtual reality headset, violating agreements with Total Recall Technologies. While Luckey may argue that he used his own plans and knowledge in the development of the virtual reality headset, news article say the dispute is quite complex and highly fact-specific, entailing a thorough discovery process in order to learn what Luckey knew and whether he did actually breach or violate any specific provisions in the contracts between the two companies.

Did Luckey develop his product in a way that is different and unique from the products he may have worked on when associated with TRT, based on his own knowledge and plans, or were the agreements of any contracts between the two companies violated? A Reuters article states that Luckey was hired in 2011 by TRT to build a prototype head mounted display; at that time, he signed a confidentiality agreement, however the founder of Oculus is accused of using information he learned from his partnership when launching the Facebook Oculus Rift VR (virtual reality) headset.

Total Recall Technologies is seeking an unspecified amount in compensatory and punitive damages in the lawsuit against Luckey and Oculus.

Strangely, it is a bit curious as to why TRT has waited so long to bring a lawsuit against Oculus VR and Luckey. Perhaps the company decided to go forward at a point when Facebook became the owner of Oculus? A representative for the company says that the case is “meritless,” and that Oculus will be vigorous in its defense against TRT.

The lawsuit claims, according to Polygon, that “Without informing TRT, Luckey took the information he learned from the partnership, as well as the prototype that he built for the TRT using design features and other confidential information and materials supplied by the partnership, and passed it off to others as his own.”

Of the current modern virtual reality headsets, the Oculus Rift is the most widely known according to a Forbes article, and is scheduled to become available in the market during the first quarter of 2016 following a hugely successful Kickstarter campaign that resulted in raising $2.4 million, a drop in the bucket when compared to the $2 billion Facebook invested.

As highly experienced Los Angeles business attorneys and intellectual property attorneys, we understand that working with new technological advances may complicate already complex industries. Yet the huge majority of costly lawsuits and conflicts such as these are avoidable with the help of an experienced legal professional. If you are a former employee or an employer facing similar circumstances, contact Spotora & Associates, PC for the best way to proceed today.

Today virtually every company, regardless of size, is a “tech” company; nearly every business has some connection to the Internet, and indeed today most have websites.  Social media platforms have become a critical component of online marketing strategies for companies big and small.  Considering the use of logos, images, business names, symbols, copyrights, trademarks, and all that is necessary for businesses to compete today, is cyber liability insurance really necessary?  The short answer – yes.

Think about it for just a moment:  Even companies who do not actually conduct business online, such as perhaps an auto collision repair shop, still use the Internet to interact with insurance providers via web portals.  In a tech-savvy world, much can happen and does on a daily basis.  Defamation, copyright or trademark infringement, data breach, the risks are increasing for not only large corporations, but small companies as well.

Cyber crime is one of the biggest threats today for companies who conduct any business activity at all online.  Unfortunately, many individuals neglect to realize how vulnerable their businesses are to cyber crime, and fail to take action to reduce exposure.  Employee error can result in cyber crime, so staff must be diligently trained on data transmission.  Companies whose websites or other online systems are “hacked” leave their customers’ personal data (such as name, banking information, credit card numbers, etc.) vulnerable, and often in the hands of criminals.

On the Internet, anything can happen.  Many companies do all possible to ensure their websites and other online properties are secure, however many criminals are extremely intelligent.  Data breach is an extremely serious matter, as are intellectual property infringement, defamation, and employee error.

Is cyber liability insurance a good idea?  Absolutely, considering the growing trend of cyber crimes committed upon businesses of every size.

The Internet presents many challenges for businesses today; at Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles business attorneys assist with all technology related, from licensing agreements to protecting and defending your intellectual property on the Internet.  As seasoned LA business attorneys, we understand the challenges companies face today in a “virtual” world; let us help you with your needs.

Recently, it was announced that Twenty-First Century Fox and Walt Disney Co. would no longer run Verizon FiOS commercials in certain markets that advertise Verizon’s cable package, arguing that the company’s FiOS TV, a cable program that is said to be cheaper and slimmer than basic cable, violated existing agreements.

According to a news article at L.A. Biz, Verizon called the move made by the two companies, along with Comcast Corporation, an “anticompetitive tactic.” A spokeswoman for Verizon revealed to the New York Times that Disney would pull ads run for the cable program at television stations in New York including A & E and WABC, in addition to ESPN radio. In Philadelphia, the ABC affiliate pulled advertising for the FiOS custom TV stations. Fox has decided to pull the Verizon ads from WNYW, its New York affiliate, and YES, a sports cable channel.

According to another article at Reuters, Walt Disney Co. did run the Verizon ads in Pittsburgh, Boston, and Washington, D.C. last week. Disney declined to comment on the commercials, while a spokesperson for Fox told the Times that the company desired to keep the company’s discussions regarding commercials confidential.

Verizon’s FiOS Custom TV package makes it possible for customers to sign up for a basic package consisting of 36 channels; customers are also able to add on two news, sports, children’s program, or other genre-specific packages. With a cost of $55 per month, the package targets those who have chosen streaming services over cable due to cost.

On Wednesday, April 22, Disney notified Verizon via e-mail that the company would not run FiOS Custom TV ads on their channels, claiming that the ad violates contract agreements. Verizon maintains that the company, under current agreements with media companies to offer the slimmed-down service, is within its rights by giving subscribers their basic package of 36 fixed channels for the monthly charge.

Ultimately, at the bottom of the dispute is that while pay-TV providers desire to break up the large bundles of channels being offered by online companies and cable rivals at the current time, media companies are attempting to keep specific channels that are popular in the larger packages they offer in an effort to protect business.

At the time of news reports, Verizon and Disney had no comments on the pulled television ads.

The Los Angeles business attorneys at Spotora & Associates realize that the business and entertainment worlds are highly competitive, and the claims arising from television programming package agreements can be particularly complex. Whether your company is being accused of violating a contract or another entity is in breach of your agreement, contact us right away and our senior associates will identify and enforce your contractual rights to resolve the issue as efficiently as possible.

Today, Samsung and Apple were sued by the Coalition Against Distracted Driving, a citizens groups supporting education of drivers against distracted driving, specifically the use of smartphones and smartwatches while driving, according to a news article at West Side Today. The group, who is said to be anticipating the risks regarding the use of the Apple Watch, is attempting to force makers of smartphones to pay $1 billion for a program designed to educate motorists regarding the dangers of distracted driving.

Filed on Monday, April 20th, the lawsuit also names Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc. The lawsuit claims that the Coalition Against Distracted Driving (CADD) is a group based in Los Angeles that was formed for the purpose of promoting ongoing and effective education to the public regarding the use of mobile devices while driving. Stephen Joseph, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he is “acting in this case in the public interest.” Joseph also states in the suit that he recognizes the potential of injury to himself caused by the “possibility of being hit by a driver who cannot see the road because he/she is using a smartphone or smartwatch.”

The lawsuit against the defendants claims that the use of smartphones while operating a vehicle is an “epidemic” across the nation, and cites numerous instances across the U.S. in which accidents were the fault of inattentive drivers. Specifically, one truck driver was allegedly looking on Facebook at photos of women using a Samsung Galaxy smartphone, when he killed one police officer after plowing into five police cars.

While the Apple Watch has not yet been made available to the public, the lawsuit claims that the watch “creates a far greater distraction than smartphones” because given the fact the watch is attached to the driver’s wrist, ignoring notifications is more difficult. In regards to teenagers, the suit claims the temptation for teens to view the notifications by the watch is “irresistible,” particularly in situations involving conversation via text.

According to the CADD, the $1 billion cost the group wants Samsung and Apple to pay to educate people nationwide regarding the use of smartphones and smartwatches “is a tiny fraction of profits that defendants receive from the sale of these products.”

At Spotora & Associates, our senior associates understand that in many cases, the products companies manufacture are open to lawsuits of this nature, lawsuits which claim the dangers of using the products in specific situations. Given advances in technology today, litigation is often difficult to avoid and regardless of your industry, the potential of a lawsuit exists. Rely on our team of skilled and experienced Los Angeles business attorneys for outstanding legal advisement and to limit your liability.

Recently, it was announced that Two Toasters, a design and development agency for applications on Google and Apple platforms, was acquired by Ticketmaster, a divisions of Live Nation Entertainment. While Ticketmaster had little to say about the acquisition, it did confirm on the company’s website that the acquisition “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity.”

While the amount Ticketmaster paid to acquire Two Toasters was not disclosed in news reports, the American Tobacco Campus-based company will be known as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio, according to the Herald Sun. On Tuesday, March 31, Ticketmaster issued a statement saying that the acquisition of Two Toasters “further demonstrates Ticketmaster’s commitment to expanding its mobile capacity and creating a truly end-to-end platform unlike any other in the live event and entertainment space.”

According to news sources, Two Toasters has been successful in the launch of more than 50 mobile applications for a wide array of companies, some of which include Regal Entertainment Group, Birchbox, Ebates, and Airbnb, among others. Two Toasters currently employs 32 individuals. The company was founded by Adit and Rachit Shukla, brothers. The deal is an important strategic undertaking for Ticketmaster, according to sources, who say the deal establishes a solid presence for Live Nation in the Triangle.

Two Toasters’ CEO Rachit Shukla said in the statement issued by Ticketmaster that, “We’ve assembled one of the best mobile teams in the region and Two Toasters has become a magnet for new talent.” Shukla went on to say that by Two Toasters joining Ticketmaster, the company’s visions has been expanded, and the talented team given the opportunity to take ownership and build a completely new mobile standard in the industry as Ticketmaster Mobile Studio.

Spotora & Associates is a talented team of Los Angeles business attorneys dedicated to achieving and exceeding your business goals. We specialize in mergers and acquisitions and successfully represent businesses in a wide array of industries; if you are in the process of acquiring a new entity or being acquired, we can help you ensure all bases are covered at every step. We know the complexities involved and will provide the expertise and knowledge essential to helping you make a smart and profitable business decision. Our primary goal is to obtain your objectives in business transactions from the simplest, to the most complex. Contact us to get started right away.

At Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles mergers and acquisitions attorneys understand the complexities involved when one company acquires or merges with another.  Purchasing another company must be approached carefully and thoughtfully, with the assistance of a skilled lawyer.  Recently, El Segundo’s PCM Inc. purchased some of the assets of En Pointe Technologies Sales Inc., an IT firm who specializes in Microsoft products according to an article at the Los Angeles Business Journal.

PCM Inc. manufactures MacMall and PC Mall technology product catalogs in addition to information technology solutions designed for both local governments and businesses.  In acquiring specific assets from En Pointe Technologies Sales, PCM agreed to pay $15 million for the IT solutions acquired from En Pointe, a Gardena-based company.  Over the next three years, PCM will also pay 10% of certain agreed upon services revenues and 22 1/2% of the company’s future adjusted gross profit, according to a filing with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission.)

En Pointe is expected to retain its inventory and accounts receivable; this includes a $72 million contract over the next five years to provide more than 30 Los Angeles County departments with cloud-based software, a contract that was signed in June of 2014.  At the time the company’s year ended on September 30, 2014, revenue was reported to be $393 million.

The acquisition deal between PCM and En Pointe is scheduled to close on April 1st of this year, with PCM planning the creation of a new division which will assume the En Pointe name.

According to chairman and chief executive of PCM Frank Khulusi, the company feels that acquiring En Pointe will complement PCM’s commercial and public sector segments.  In addition, the 240 employees of En Pointe will be offered equivalent positions at PCM.

Bob Din, Chief Executive at En Pointe, founded the company more than two decades ago in 1993.  When the acquisition of En Pointe by PCM was announced on Monday, shares at PCM closed at $9.11, an increase of one percent.

We understand how difficult it can be in making a decision to acquire a company, and all of the issues involved including often times difficult negotiations, regulatory filings, reaching your objectives and goals, tax implications, and more.  At Spotora & Associates, our LA acquisition lawyers want to help ensure your decisions are solid, smart, and most important of all, that all transactions and strategies are sound, protecting you from potential litigation in the future.

Recently, Cupertino-based Apple Inc. has been hit with a slew of new patent infringement lawsuits after the company was ordered last week to pay more than $530 million for infringing on the patents of a Texas company, according to an article at the LA Times.

Texas-based Smartflash was awarded $532.9 million by a jury, then filed an additional lawsuit on February 25 alleging that Apple violated the company’s patents in relation to devices that debuted after the original lawsuit was already in court. In the midst of all this, Ericsson, a pioneer in the Swedish mobile phone industry, hit Apple hard when the company filed seven federal lawsuits against Apple in an ongoing patent dispute, along with two complaints filed with the U.S. International Trade commission alleging that Apple had infringed on more than 40 patents in relation to various technologies relevant to iPads and iPhones.

In January of this year, a licensing agreement between Apple and Ericsson regarding royalties to be paid to the Swedish technology company for its mobile technology expired. Since that time, the companies have traded lawsuits, with Apple filing a suit against Ericsson in January regarding a fair rate for the rights to Ericsson’s patents. A spokeswoman for Apple revealed a statement made by Apple saying, “We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”

Some of the patents Ericsson is taking legal action against Apple for include 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE high-speed wireless technology; complaints filed in federal court also indicate Ericsson has taken legal action in regards to GPS technology.

While the initial lawsuit filed by Smartflash against Apple claimed infringement on three patents including devices that use iTunes and iTunes software, the new lawsuit filed by Smartflash LLC accused Apple of continuing to infringe on patents such as those for payment for songs, games, and other data in addition to methods utilized to manage digital rights. Apple denies the allegations, saying that the company manufactures no products, has no presence in the U.S., creates no jobs, and has no employees, and that Smartflash is exploiting Apple’s patent system in order to claim royalties for technology that Apple actually invented.

Spotora & Associates is a skilled team of Los Angeles intellectual property attorneys highly experienced and knowledgeable in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, and other areas of Internet law. Contact us today for unsurpassed legal guidance, support, and representation in matters regarding intangible rights.

A recent breach or “hack” of Sony Corporation’s security safeguards has been widely in the news in recent weeks, however the real impact of this hack may not yet be completely realized. The breach of the company’s security safeguards has affected not only celebrities, but employees as well. Now, it seems that the thousands of leaked documents are in regards to breach of contract, health privacy, employment, and more. The private information of both celebrities and employees is at risk, but it seems to go much further according to recent news articles.

U.S. government officials feel certain that North Korea was behind the Sony hack. Whoever it was, it has certainly caused an uproar among celebrities, film makers, and the company’s own employees. In fact, intimate details about employees that never would have been made public now have. Some of the information that has been exposed due to the breach include employee social security numbers, disciplinary files, medical records, and according to one source, one of Sony’s senior executives breastfeeding diet. Not only frustrating, but embarrassing for some.

Once source claims that out of 17 employees in the U.S. who earn $1 million per year working for Sony, one is a woman. What may be upsetting to Hannah Minghella, a co-president of production at the company’s Columbia Pictures division, is that Michael DeLuca, her male counterpart, is making nearly one million dollars more for doing the same job.

Following the November 24th attack on Sony’s entertainment division, employees were advised not to connect to the company’s email system and corporate network, as it had become apparent its security system had been infiltrated. Although Sony took quick action and did everything in its power, the infiltration occurred regardless.

Sony is likely to face an untold number of lawsuits in the coming weeks and months, as much of the information leaked is reportedly in regards to salary negotiations, internal communications about specific employees, discussion of termination decisions, performance reviews, and other data that could support claims of discrimination, sexual harassment, unfair termination, and more.

As Los Angeles employment lawyers, we can only imagine the issues Sony has already and will face in the coming days and weeks. Our firm represents clients in a wide array of employee-related matters including harassment, wrongful termination, age, race, sexual preference, or religious discrimination, wage and hour law, ERISA, and more. While taking preventive measures initially in a business setting to protect against these types of claims, it is still common for employees to file claims against employers. Contact our skilled team of professionals for unsurpassed legal guidance and representation.