Doe v. BJC Health System, No. 23-1107 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
In a case before the United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit, the plaintiffs, a group of patients, sued BJC Health System (BJC) alleging that BJC had violated their medical privacy rights under Missouri state law. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that when they accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through BJC’s online patient portal, their protected health information was shared with third-party marketing services. BJC removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that they acted under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when creating and operating the online patient portal. BJC's argument was rejected by the district court which ordered the case to be remanded back to Missouri state court. BJC appealed this decision.
The United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to remand the case to the Missouri state court. The appellate court held that BJC, while receiving federal incentive payments from HHS for creating and operating the online patient portal, was not essentially performing a basic governmental task or duty. Therefore, BJC was not acting under a federal officer in terms of the federal officer removal statute. The court concluded that the creation and operation of an online patient portal was not a basic governmental task, and BJC was not a government contractor or functioning as a federal instrumentality.
Court Description: [Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Class Actions. Plaintiffs are or were BJC patients who claimed BJC violated their medical privacy rights under Missouri law by sharing information plaintiffs provided on BJC's online health information portals with Google and Facebook, which then used the information to target ads shown to plaintiffs; the action was brought in state court, and BJC removed it to federal court under the federal officer removal statute - 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1); plaintiffs moved to remand the matter, and the district court granted the motion. BJC appeals the remand order. Held: BJC's actions in complying with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act did not mean that it was acting under the Department of Health and Human Services; the creation and operation of an online patient portal is not a basic governmental task, and when BJC created the portals it did not act pursuant to an explicit or implied delegation of authority from the HHS or any federal officer; BJC was not a government contractor and did not function in practice as a governmental instrumentality; the subsidy it received for the portals did not provide a basis for removing the case under the federal officer doctrine.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.