{"id":4979,"date":"2025-09-16T13:39:37","date_gmt":"2025-09-16T18:39:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/westplexnews.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/16\/appeals-court-gives-missouri-ag-pathway-to-transgender-center-patient-records-2\/"},"modified":"2025-09-16T13:39:37","modified_gmt":"2025-09-16T18:39:37","slug":"appeals-court-gives-missouri-ag-pathway-to-transgender-center-patient-records-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/westplexnews.com\/index.php\/2025\/09\/16\/appeals-court-gives-missouri-ag-pathway-to-transgender-center-patient-records-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court gives Missouri AG pathway to Transgender Center patient records"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office is seeking records from the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. An appellate court decision Tuesday is making a path for those records (Rebecca Rivas\/Missouri Independent).<\/p>\n

The Missouri Attorney General\u2019s Office is allowed to access patient health information as part of its investigation into the Washington University Transgender Center, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals <\/span>decision<\/span><\/a>, written by Judge Phillip Hess, reverses a <\/span>ruling last year by a St. Louis judge that allowed<\/span><\/a> the health center to withhold patient information protected by the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But Tuesday\u2019s ruling does not end the fight for these otherwise confidential records nor will it open the floodgates for the attorney general to have untethered access to records. <\/span>Instead, the circuit court must step in to tailor the requests and minimize the amount of protected health information that is ultimately shared.<\/span><\/p>\n

Among the records requested in a February 2023 civil investigative demand was a desire for \u201call electronic health records of (the center\u2019s) clients\u201d and a list of all the Transgender Center\u2019s patients.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis court is very mindful of the breadth and depth of the attorney general\u2019s requests to examine 1,165 minor patients\u2019 most personal medical information,\u201d Hess wrote. \u201cThus, the circuit court is empowered to modify the (civil investigative demands) as it deems appropriate under state and federal law.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The decision touches on a notion that private information may already be in the attorney general\u2019s hands. When the center received the initial requests for information, it provided \u201cremote, read-only access to its electronic medical records system\u201d alongside lists of patient information, prescriptions and billing data.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe center abruptly changed its position, which prompted the attorney general to insist on receiving unredacted medical records with their metadata included,\u201d Hess wrote.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case is one of a handful of legal fights stemming from former Attorney General Andrew Bailey\u2019s use of the state\u2019s consumer protection law to probe into adolescent gender-affirming care through the state\u2019s consumer protection law. Bailey began looking into the prescription of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to minors <\/span>in early 2023<\/span><\/a>, after a former case worker for the Transgender Center claimed in an affidavit that children were rushed into care.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Catherine Hanaway talks to reporters on Aug. 19 after being announced as the state\u2019s next attorney general (Jason Hancock\/Missouri Independent).<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Attorney General Catherine Hanaway took Bailey\u2019s place Sept. 8, when he <\/span>stepped down to become the co-deputy director of the FBI<\/span><\/a>. Hanaway <\/span>told The Independent<\/span><\/a> that her leadership of the office is \u201cgoing to be a different style,\u201d but it is unclear if she will continue pursuing the investigations of gender-affirming-care providers.<\/span><\/p>\n

The attorney general\u2019s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A mainstay of gender-affirming-care providers\u2019 arguments against the civil investigative demands is that the attorney general is attempting to look into medical malpractice, which is outside the office\u2019s jurisdiction. This point is left unanswered in Tuesday\u2019s ruling, with Hess writing that it could be adjudicated in future legal battles if the attorney general files a claim against the center.<\/span><\/p>\n

The court\u2019s decision, Hess wrote, only applies to pre-claim investigative authority. And although the ruling did not shut down the probe for patient records, some of the attorney general\u2019s claims asserting broad authority were rejected.<\/span><\/p>\n

The office claimed in <\/span>its appeal<\/span><\/a>, written by former Solicitor General Josh Divine, that the attorney general\u2019s office counts as a \u201chealth oversight agency,\u201d in which HIPAA allows providers to share protected health information.<\/span><\/p>\n

But because the investigation is looking into consumer fraud through the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, it is not a matter of health oversight, the court determined.<\/span><\/p>\n

Divine also wrote that civil investigative demands should be considered \u201corders\u201d from an \u201cadministrative tribunal,\u201d which is another occasion in which HIPAA allows disclosure. But these demands are not \u201cindependently enforceable orders,\u201d Hess wrote.<\/span><\/p>\n

The battle will return to St. Louis Circuit Court, where a judge must sort out whether de-identified records will suffice for the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n <\/i>\n

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n