On Aug. 8, 2011, plaintiff Lauren Lord, a lens fitter at the Fairfield and Vacaville Optical Departments with The Permanente Medical Group Inc., was terminated from her position for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations. However, Lord contended that the stated reason for the termination was a pretext and that the real reason for her termination was due to her disabilities. Lord sued The Permanente Medical Group Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. Lord alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. Lord claimed she worked for the Permanente Medical Group for 24 years and during that time, she received exemplary job reviews and was thought to be a highly skilled lens fitter. Thus, she contended that the stated reason for her termination, i.e. HIPAA violations, was a pretext and that the real reason for her terminated was discriminatory animus. More specifically, Lord claimed that she was terminated because of her hearing loss, chronic pain and stomach pain, in addition to being retaliated against for having taken family medical leave in 2010. Defense counsel noted that in May 2011, Lord’s name came up on a random audit of the Permanente Medical Group’s Health Connect computer system (an in-house computer system that maintains patient charts) because she had accessed her husband’s chart. During an internal investigation, it was discovered that Lord had accessed her husband’s records numerous times and had also accessed the record of her adult daughter and teenage son. Lord admitted during the investigation that she did not have a business reason to access the records and that she had allegedly signed authorizations from her husband and her daughter, both of whom testified they gave Lord permission to access their records. Following the investigation, there was a compliance committee meeting to discuss the investigation findings. The committee was comprised of employees of all of the defendants, none of whom knew Lord or anything concerning her work history, other than that she was a 24-year employee working in the optical department. The committee reviewed the investigation findings, which included multiple dates in which Lord had been in her husband’s records and in multiple different areas of his medical records, including medications, lab results and office encounters. The investigation also found that Lord had been in her son’s medical records and that there is a very strict California law prohibiting access to medical records for patients between the ages of 12 and 18. In addition, the investigation found that Lord was not forthcoming concerning the information and that she had allegedly not taken the yearly compliance test, which is a yearly test regarding policies and procedures concerning privacy and confidentiality. Defense counsel contended that the committee compared Lord’s violations with those they had reviewed in the past and that on the basis of the committee’s comparisons, recommended that Lord be terminated. Defense counsel also contended that following the recommendation, there was a telephone conference with a human resources consultant (who was a member of the compliance committee), two of Lord’s managers, and the director of optical for the northern region. During a telephone conference, the HR consultant briefed the group on the investigation, the findings, and the compliance committee recommendation for termination. Defense counsel further contended that there was a discussion concerning other possible disciplines, at which time the HR consultant advised the group that they did a comparative study of discipline of other cases in the Napa/Solano service area and that Lord was the most egregious case they had investigated. Thus, counsel asserted that based upon the findings, the director of the optical for northern California determined that Lord should be terminated. Defense counsel maintained that Lord violated several of the Permanente Medical Group’s policies and procedures that were designed to reflect federal and state law requirements for patient confidentiality and privacy. Counsel also maintained that a written authorization does not allow access of the business computer system (Health Connect) unless there is a business need to do so. Defense counsel further maintained that the fact that the family members retrospectively expressed their acquiescence is irrelevant since Kaiser Permanente is periodically audited and violations of HIPAA can result in significant penalties and potential loss of accreditation. In addition, defense counsel contended that Lord suffered from hearing loss the entire 24 years she was employed with the Permanente Medical Group and that she continued to get good job reviews. Counsel also contended that Lord’s family medical leave was taken pursuant to state and federal law and that Lord’s family medical leave was completed more than six months before her termination. Counsel further contended that the defendants had no knowledge of Lord’s alleged chronic pain or continuing stomach pain until after this lawsuit was filed and medical records were received and that the committee that made the recommendation for termination, and the person who ultimately made the decision to terminate, were unaware of any of Lord’s alleged disabilities. Thus, defense counsel argued that in order to possess a discriminatory animus, knowledge is imperative., Lord claimed as a result of her termination, she suffered a major depressive disorder, which led to two suicide attempts and six months of inpatient psychiatric care. The plaintiff’s psychiatry expert testified that based upon his extensive review of the records, Lord did not appear to have any evidence of a depressive disorder prior to her termination and that the records demonstrate that after she was fired, Lord had a major depressive disorder that will require several years of psychiatric treatment. Lord claimed both past and future lost wages in excess of $900,000. She also claimed that she would need ongoing psychiatric treatment that would cost in excess of $500,000. Lord further claimed that the Permanente Medical Group was in violation of the Labor Code for failing to pay her overtime wages and mileage one day a week, from when she traveled between Fairfield Clinic and the Vacaville Clinic. Both claims were made from 2008 until her termination in August 2011. Defense counsel contended that Lord was addicted to pain medication and had been referred to a chemical dependency rehabilitation program on two occasions prior to her termination. Counsel also contended that Lord’s treating physician, on the basis of his review of the records, concluded that Lord, in fact, was in crisis prior to her termination. In addition, defense counsel contended that Lord had a history of bipolar disorder. Defense counsel did not contest the fact that Lord had some depression immediately following her termination, but argued that Lord’s major problems over the next several years dealt with her drug addiction for which she was ultimately hospitalized in a dual diagnosis facility and treated primarily for drug withdrawal.