Background
Kaitlin Lamarr sued Goshen Health System in state court in one of several putative class actions alleging that health care providers improperly disclosed patients’ health information through Meta Pixel tracking software embedded in their websites. The complaints asserted state-law claims arising from the alleged disclosures.
Goshen Health and the other providers removed the cases to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). They argued that they were “acting under” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services when they created and maintained online patient portals to comply with the federal Meaningful Use Program, which encouraged electronic access to health records through incentive payments and reduced Medicare reimbursements for noncompliance. The district courts rejected that jurisdictional theory and remanded the cases to state court.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the remand orders, holding that the health care providers were not “acting under” a federal officer or agency when they created their patient portals. The providers were complying with federal regulations and responding to federal incentives, but they were not performing a basic governmental task delegated to them. The portals remained private websites built by private providers principally for their patients and staff.
The court also concluded that the providers lacked the unusually close relationship with the federal government necessary for federal officer removal. The governing regulations required providers to give patients timely electronic access to health information but did not dictate how to design or maintain the portals. Nonbinding federal guidance offering tips and best practices did not amount to the detailed direction, monitoring, or control present in cases involving federal contractors. Because the providers failed the “acting under” requirement, the court did not decide whether their conduct related to federal authority or whether they had a colorable federal defense.
Key Takeaways
- Compliance with extensive federal regulation does not, by itself, make a private health care provider a person “acting under” a federal officer for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
- Federal incentives promoting patient portals did not delegate a basic governmental function to the providers.
- General regulatory requirements and nonbinding best-practice guidance did not establish the detailed federal supervision or control required for federal officer removal.
Why It Matters
The decision keeps these patient-portal tracking lawsuits in state court and aligns the Seventh Circuit with other federal appellate courts that have rejected substantially similar removal arguments. Health care providers cannot obtain a federal forum merely because federal electronic-health-record programs encouraged or required them to offer patients online access to medical information.