Indemnity Payment: $15,000
Legal Expenses: $3,800
Summary
This case study involves a healthy, college-aged male attending university. As the student began his junior year, and because his parents had recently separated and were now living on opposite sides of the state, it was decided that he would bring his father’s old car to campus.
During the three-hour drive home to visit his mother, a police officer stopped him for exceeding the speed limit. When asked to provide documentation for the vehicle, the student opened the glove box to look for the car registration. When he removed some of the glove box contents, the officer noticed an unmarked medication bottle as it rolled around on the passenger seat of the car. The officer then requested the student to pick up the bottle and exit the vehicle. Upon opening the bottle, the officer discovered a variety of medications of different sizes, shapes, and colors.
To rule out the possibility of foul play or intent to distribute, the student suggested that the officer contact his mother to explain and confirm that the medications belonged to either her or his father. Once on the phone with the student’s mother, she assured the officer that the medication bottle did not represent any illegal activity. She stated that the medications were not hers, but most likely belonged to her soon to be ex-husband, as he was the owner and the last regular user of the vehicle.
The mother stated that she would contact the pharmacy, as they would be able to confirm that the various tablets and capsules were medications legitimately prescribed for her estranged spouse. To complicate matters, the father had recently transferred his prescriptions to a new independent pharmacy close to his new residence. The old pharmacy provided a phone number for the husband’s new pharmacy. The mother then established a conference call with the new pharmacy and the police officer, which allowed the officer and the student to hear and participate in the conversation. The officer explained the situation to the pharmacist and his intent to rule out suspected drug distribution. The pharmacist confirmed the medications as ibuprofen 800 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, metformin 500 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, and nitroglycerin sublingual tablets.
With the matter of the unidentified bottle and tablets resolved, the officer released the student to continue home with only a minor speeding infraction.
Resolution
Although most parties were satisfied with the outcome, the student’s father sued his new pharmacist and the pharmacy. While grateful that his son was cleared of any wrongdoing, he was upset that his son and estranged spouse learned about his new cardiac issues and recent diabetes diagnosis through the disclosed medications. In his view, this constituted a breach of his privacy, and he felt that the pharmacist could have done more to protect his confidential health information. The father’s dissatisfaction was based upon the fact that he had not designated anyone as an authorized representative on his new patient intake form on file with the new pharmacy.
When the defense attorney spoke with the pharmacist involved, he admitted to being caught off guard by the police officer’s call. He had recently seen both the father and son in his store and genuinely wanted to help all parties involved. He mentioned that he felt friendly enough with the father that, had the roles been reversed, he would have wanted his own information to be shared to resolve the situation quickly.
The initial demand from the plaintiff was $25,000 — $12,500 each for —the personal information released to his son and estranged wife by the pharmacist. He chose not to raise any complaints against the police officer, stating “he was just doing his job and treated my son fairly.” Since there clearly had been an impermissible release of protected health information by the insured, the defense team recommended to settle the case.
During settlement discussions, it became clear that the plaintiff wanted to prove a point rather than pursue significant damages. He also commented that the entire situation might have been avoided had he been more responsible with his medications. With this understanding and supporting evidence, the case settled out of court with a total incurred (indemnity plus expenses) of $18,800.
Risk Management Comments
Although this incident did not result in bodily harm, it underscores the responsibility of healthcare professionals to safeguard sensitive information and highlights the potential legal consequences for failing to do so. While this type of claim is not specifically addressed in the
Pharmacist Professional Liability Exposure Claim Report: 3rd Edition, [https://www.hpso.com/Resources/Legal-and-Ethical-Issues/Pharmacist-Liability-Claim-Report-Third-Edition]it illustrates how such situations could lead to legal jeopardy or result in a State Board of Pharmacy complaint and disciplinary action.
Ideally, this situation should have been prevented well before the speeding incident occurred. Firstly, it is poor judgment to store medications in a vehicle, as extreme temperatures and humidity can reduce their potency before the stated expiration dates. Secondly, medications should remain in their original dispensing bottles to ensure correct information, enhance child safety, and facilitate emergency response. This is especially true for medications such as sublingual nitroglycerin. Not only should this medication be carried on one’s person for urgent use when needed, but the original dispensing bottle is essential to maintaining the medication’s potency. Pharmacists have a duty to educate patients on these important matters to prevent adverse outcomes.
Upon reflection, the pharmacist involved in the inquiry could also have implemented additional risk mitigation strategies. Prior to disclosing health information to law enforcement officers in non-emergency situations, best practices dictate consulting with legal counsel or a privacy officer. Additionally, the pharmacist could have contacted the concerned individual and obtained documented consent before sharing any protected health information with the officer.
Risk Management Resources for Pharmacy Personnel and Pharmacies
Disclaimer
The information, examples and suggestions presented in this material have been developed from sources believed to be reliable as of the date they are cited, but they should not be construed as legal or other professional advice. CNA, Aon, Affinity Insurance Services, Inc., NSO, or HPSO accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this material and recommends the consultation with competent legal counsel and/or other professional advisors before applying this material in any particular factual situations. This material is for illustrative purposes and is not intended to constitute a contract. Please remember that only the relevant insurance policy can provide the actual terms, coverages, amounts, conditions and exclusions for an insured. All products and services may not be available in all states and may be subject to change without notice. Certain coverages may be provided by a surplus lines insurer. Surplus lines insurers do not generally participate in state guaranty funds, and insureds are therefore not protected by such funds. The claims examples are hypothetical situations based on actual matters. Settlement amounts are approximations. Certain facts and identifying characteristics were changed to protect confidentiality and privacy. Any references to non-CNA, non-Aon, AIS, NSO, and HPSO websites are provided solely for convenience, and CNA, Aon, AIS, NSO and HPSO disclaim any responsibility with respect to such websites. “CNA” is a registered trademark of CNA Financial Corporation. Certain CNA Financial Corporation subsidiaries use the “CNA” trademark in connection with insurance underwriting and claims activities. This material is not for further distribution without the express consent of CNA. Copyright © 2025 CNA. All rights reserved.