Pacific Radiation Oncology v. Queen's Med. Ctr., No. 14-17050 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePRO filed suit against QMC, alleging that QMC's adoption of a closed-facility model was a pretext to prevent PRO physicians from competing with QMC. PRO sought injunctive relief against QMC, arguing that QMC's review and use of patient records violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. 1320d, and the Hawaii Constitution. The district court denied the injunction. In light of Devose v. Herrington, the court held that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. In this case, PRO’s motion for injunctive relief does not have a relationship or nexus to the underlying complaint. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly refused to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Procedure. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief sought by Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC against The Queen’s Medical Center. Pacific Radiation Oncology, consisting of a group of physicians specializing in radiation oncology, sued the Queen’s Medical Center alleging unfair trade practices. During discovery, Pacific Radiation Oncology sought injunctive relief against the Queen’s Medical Center alleging that the Center’s review and use of patient records during litigation violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d, and the Hawaii Constitution art. 1, § 6. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pacific Radiation Oncology’s motion for a temporary restraining order or in the alternative for a preliminary injunction. The panel followed the Eighth Circuit and adopted the rule of Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994), which established that there must exist a relationship between the injury claimed in a motion for injunctive relief and the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint. The panel held that in this case there was not a sufficient nexus between Pacific Radiation Oncology’s claim of injury to patients’ privacy in its motion for injunctive relief 4 PAC. RADIATION ONCOLOGY V. QUEEN’S MED. CTR. and the unfair trade practice claims in its underlying complaint.
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.