Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Privilege Protections Under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005

by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Contact

Executive Summary

In a case of first impression involving a medical malpractice lawsuit, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the ruling by the trial court in Daley vs. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, which ordered a hospital to produce three documents it had collected within its patient safety evaluation system (PSES), and reported to Clarity PSO, a federally certified patient safety organization. The court, in a detailed analysis, ruled that the hospital had demonstrated through its policies, documents and unrebutted affidavits that the materials in dispute qualified as privileged patient safety work product (PSWP) under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA) and, therefore, were not discoverable.

The court also found, contrary to the plaintiff's arguments, that the documents did not constitute medical records, which are not privileged under the PSQIA; that the hospital was not obligated to report the documents to the Illinois Department of Public Health under Illinois law; and finally, that the materials which were used for internal quality purposes were not collected for a purpose other than reporting to Clarity PSO. In addition, the Court held that the PSQIA contains an express preemption clause, contrary to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Charles vs. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc. Therefore, because the information qualified as PSWP, the PSQIA preempted the trial court's order requiring the hospital to turn over the documents to the plaintiff.

  1. Factual Background

    This case involves a lawsuit brought by the estate of a patient alleging that Ingalls Hospital and its employees committed malpractice on November 17 and 18, 2013, when it failed to adequately monitor and treat her blood glucose levels. The lawsuit further alleges that the patient's subsequent injuries caused by this negligence contributed to her death in October of 2014.

    During the course of discovery, the hospital objected to interrogatories which sought a number of incident reports and complaints, arguing they were privileged from discovery under both the Illinois Medical Studies Act and the PSQIA. Plaintiff also requested that the hospital produce documents which described any statements made by the decedent, family member or anyone with knowledge regarding issues addressed in the complaint.

    Upon refusal to produce the documents, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Ultimately, only three documents remained in dispute, two incident reports involving the patient's care and a complaint that was made by the patient's daughter to a hospital employee regarding the patient's treatment. All three documents, which were electronically reported to Clarity PSO, contained the heading "Healthcare Safety Zone Portal" in addition to the name "Clarity Group, Inc. Copyright" at the bottom of each page, as well as the dates on which the documents were created. The three documents were provided to the trial court for in-camera review. The hospital later limited its arguments to a claim that the materials constituted privilege patient safety work product (PSWP) under the PSQIA.

    In support of its response to the motion to compel, the hospital submitted an affidavit from its associate general counsel, as well as a supplemental affidavit which contained the follow representations:

    • The hospital contracted with Clarity Patient Safety Organization in 2009 to improve the hospital's patient safety and quality of health care.
    • The documents in dispute were created, prepared and generated for submission to Clarity.
    • The Healthcare Safety Zone Portal provided the means by which the hospital reported this information to Clarity and were prepared "solely" for submission to Clarity.
    • The documents were not part of the patient's original medical records, which already had been produced to the plaintiff.
    • The documents had never been removed from the hospital's PSES for any purpose other than for internal quality purposes.
    • The documents had not been reported to or investigated by any agency or organization other than Clarity.
    • There were no other reports pertaining to the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint that were collected or maintained separately from the hospital's PSES.

    Interestingly and importantly, the plaintiff never filed a response nor did she object or attempt to rebut information contained in the affidavits.

    Upon reviewing the documents, the trial court circled certain information in each and required that these portions be produced to the plaintiff. The hospital refused to comply and was held in "friendly contempt," which allows for an automatic appeal to the appellate court.

    A joint amicus curie brief in support of the hospital was filed by the Illinois Health & Hospital Association, The American Medical Association, The Alliance for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, The Illinois State Medical Society and Clarity PSO. The Illinois Trial Lawyers Association filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff.

  2. Analysis

    The Appellate Court begin its analysis of the PSQIA by citing the 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine entitled "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System," which served as the primary basis for the passage of the PSQIA which identified that the privilege protections were "the foundation to furthering the overall goal of the statute to develop a national system for analyzing and learning from patient safety events."

    In its discussion regarding PSWP, the court recognized that there are three distinct ways of creating privileged documents via the "reporting pathway," which includes actual and "functional reporting," as well as treating this information as "deliberations or analysis." Because Ingalls argued that the documents were PSWP through the reporting pathway, the court examined whether the hospital met all of the requirements under the PSQIA and further, whether any of the exceptions applied as per the PSQIA and the HHS PSO Guidance. In determining that the documents were indeed PSWP, the court made the following findings:

    • The court documents demonstrate "that they are an amalgamation of data, reports, discussions, and reflections, the very type of information that is by definition patient safety work product."
    • The affidavits established that the documents were assembled and prepared by Ingalls "solely" for submission to Clarity and were reported to Clarity.
    • "The information contained in the documents had the ability to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare, and the documents themselves bear the dates information was entered into the patient safety evaluation system" as represented in the unrebutted affidavits.

    The court next addressed the plaintiff's arguments, discussed below, that the documents met three of the exceptions as to whether they qualified as PSWP.

    1. The Information was Required To Be in the Patient's Medical Record and, Therefore, was Not Privileged                                                            

      Although the plaintiff did not see any of the disputed documents, she argued that information in the reports should have been in the medical records. The court acknowledged that the PSQIA does not allow original medical records to be patient's safety work product:

      "But, if that same information is included within documents that are intended to be submitted to a patient's safety organization, the documents containing the information are privileged (citation). Thus, contrary to plaintiff's argument, merely because information required to be [the descendant's] medical record might also be contained in the documents at issue, this fact does not mean the documents themselves are no longer patient safety work product."

      Plaintiff also argued that there was "a large gap of time" and "ambiguity" in the record because there was little, if any, documentation over a critical seven hour period of time while the patient was in the hospital. The hospital, she claims, was hiding important information under the "guise of patient safety work product."

      The court recognized that under the Illinois Hospital Licensing Act, a medical record must meet certain documentation requirements and that the PSQIA "does not permit providers to use the privilege and confidentiality protection . . . to shield records required by external recordkeeping or reporting." The court importantly noted, however, that if the hospital failed to create an adequate medical record, there are "associated consequences" for such failure, including losing its operating license. In other words, the result should not be that information, prepared for the purpose of reporting to a PSO and which is reported to a PSO, loses its privileged status because it may include facts and other information in the medical records. The court further stated that the documents in question were created weeks after the patient was treated at the hospital. Thus, the court determined that "nothing in the records lead us to believe that the documents were [patient's] original medical records or contained information that should have been included in the original medical records."

    2. The Documents Were Not Collected Solely for the Purpose of Reporting to a Patient Safety Organization

      The court previously identified that one of the exceptions to whether a document qualifies as PSWP is if it was collected, maintained or developed for a purpose other than for reporting to a PSO. But in this case, the plaintiff failed to rebut the hospital's affidavit that the documents in question were prepared "solely" for submission to Clarity. Therefore, as a matter of law, the court was required to accept this representation. Also, there was nothing else in the record which suggested that the documents were prepared for a different or separate reason other than for internal quality purposes.

    3. Information Collected To Satisfy a Reporting Requirement Does Not Qualify as PSWP

      To support this argument, the plaintiff cited the Illinois Adverse Health Care Events Reporting Law of 2005, which requires the reporting of certain identified adverse events to the Illinois Department of Public Health. The plaintiff also cited the Florida Supreme Court decision in Charles vs. Southern Baptist Hospital Florida and the Kentucky Supreme Court decision in Tibbs vs. Bunnell as further support. Both of these decisions determined that the states in question, Florida and Kentucky, imposed a record reporting or recordkeeping obligation on the documents in dispute, and therefore, they did not qualify as PSWP under the PSQIA.

      The Appellate Court did not comment on whether these decisions were or were not correct because, as pointed out by the hospital, the statute in question has not yet been implemented in Illinois, and therefore, the hospital had no mandated reporting obligation.

    4. Allowing the Documents To Remain Privileged Will Permit Health Care Providers To Hide Valuable Information and, Thus, Impede the Truth Seeking Process

      This is an argument which was made by both the plaintiff and in the amicus brief submitted by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. In response to this contention, the Appellate Court makes an important statement, which is true in all medical malpractice actions.

      "However, nothing about these documents being privileged renders the facts that underlie the [PSWP] as also privileged. Plaintiffs can still obtain medical records, as plaintiff did in this case, have their experts analyze and make opinions about those records, and depose doctors and nurses regarding an incident. See Jenkins vs. Wu, 102 Il.2d 468, 479 (1984) (finding that, while privileged protections under the Illinois Medical Studies Act may deny plaintiffs access to documents in a medical malpractice case, the denial 'should have little impact' on plaintiffs' abilities to maintain such causes of action because they can obtain their medical records, depose all persons involved in their treatment and engage experts to give opinions as to the quality of care received'). When there is no indication that a healthcare provider has failed to comply with its external record – keeping and reporting requirements and it creates supplementary information for purposes of working with a patient safety organization to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare, that provider is furthering the Patient's Safety Act's objectives while not preventing the discovery of information normally available to a medical malpractice plaintiff. Under these circumstances, that additional information must be protected from disclosure."

    5. Preemption Analysis

      The Appellate Court also engaged in analysis as to whether the PSQIA "preempts the Circuit Court's production order of the documents." In reviewing the language of the statute, the court determined that while the PSQIA clearly has an express preemption clause, a judge must still determine the substantive scope of Congress' intent to displace state law. Citing other cases which have addressed this question, as well as the PSQIA itself, the court held that the preemption clause "demonstrates Congress' intent to supersede any court order requiring production of documents that meet the definition of patient safety or product . . . [I]n other words, when information is patient safety work product, the Patient Safety Act should be construed as preempting any state action or requiring a provider to disclose such work product . . . [c]onsequently, the Patient Safety Act preempts the circuit court's production order."

  3. Impact and Lessons Learned

    Although state court decisions have no precedential value or binding effect in other jurisdictions, they can influence other courts, especially when there are so few published appellate decisions which have addressed the scope of the privilege protections under the PSQIA and no reported decisions at all in the particular state. The state Supreme Court decisions in Tibbs, Clouse and Charles, which provided a narrow, if not an erroneous, interpretation of these protections, have been relied on by those courts which seem to be predisposed to ignoring the broad privilege afforded under the PSQIA. And plaintiff's attorneys seeking access to internal peer review, quality and related information to support their malpractice and other claims against health care providers have tried to use these cases to support their demands, as was true in this case.

    The Daley decision, coupled with the fairly recent decision by the Kentucky Appellate Court in University of Kentucky vs. Bunnell (532 S.W.3d 658 Ky Ct. App. 2017), provides a more accurate and objective interpretation of the PSQIA consistent with the intent of Congress to encourage all licensed providers to actively engage in patient safety activities designed to improve health care services and reduce patient risk. Unfortunately, many providers, even those who have contracted with a PSO, have been somewhat sitting on the sidelines and not taking full advantage of the PSQIA because there are no reported decisions within their state. Hopefully, the decisions in Daley and Bunnell will serve as additional motivation to take advantage of these privilege protections, which typically are broader than those offered under a state's peer review statute.

    All of the reported PSQIA decisions, whether favorable or not, provide insight and various "lessons learned" in order to assist providers in making the strongest case against attempts by plaintiffs and other parties to gain access to privileged PSWP. These lessons include the following.

  1. Develop a Specific and Broadly Worded PSES Policy

    One of the fundamental documents to be introduced to a court in demonstrating that the materials in dispute are indeed PSWP is a provider's PSES policy. Courts are not going to simply accept the word of a hospital or other provider that information qualifies as PSWP. The provider should conduct an inventory of all its performance improvement, quality assurance, peer review and other related patient safety activities, as well as the various committees, reports and other analyses being conducted within the organization. This is the starting point when determining the scope of activities you wish to include within the PSES and therefore claim is privileged PSWP. The details of these activities and the information to be protected should be reflected within the PSES. When seeking to claim privilege protections over an incident report, committee minutes or other internal analysis, a provider can then cite the specific reference within the PSES as evidence of the hospital's intent to treat this information as privileged. The provider also should include a "catch all" paragraph to account for other privileged patient safety activities that are not included in the PSES policy.

  2. Use Supporting Detailed Affidavits

    Judges generally are very bright and well-educated individuals, but have little practical or substantive knowledge about the inner workings of a hospital or the scope of the ongoing patient safety activities which take place.

    The role of the provider and its legal counsel is to effectively educate the court so that judges have a better understanding as to the context of why the disputed materials are indeed PSWP. As was true in the Walgreens and Daley decisions, the Appellate Court in each case relied heavily on the affidavits that were submitted to demonstrate compliance with the PSQIA requirements in order to determine whether the information qualified as PSWP. In the Daley decision, the Appellate Court accepted all of the representations as true, as it is required to do, especially when these representations were not rebutted by the plaintiff.

    The types of representations and documents to include with the affidavit include the following:

    1. The PSO AHRQ certification and recertification letters.
    2. The provider's PSO membership agreement.
    3. The PSES policy.
    4. Screen shots of the redacted forms, reports, etc., for which the privilege is being asserted.
    5. Documentation as to when the information was reported, either electronically or functionally, or when the information qualified as "deliberations or analysis" under this separate pathway.
    6. A description of how information is collected within the PSES, and how it qualifies as PSWP, if not otherwise set forth in the PSES.
    7. A representation as to how the PSWP is used for internal patient safety activities.
    8. A representation that the information has not been collected for unrelated purposes, such as satisfying a state or federal mandated reporting requirement.
    9. If possible, a representation that the provider is not required by state or federal law to make the information available to a governmental agency or other third party.
    10. An affidavit from the PSO acknowledging the provider's membership and that the information, if reported, was received and is being used to further the provider's and the PSO's privileged patient safety activities.
  3. Carefully Describe Your PSWP Pathway

    As noted by the Appellate Court in Daley, a provider can create PSWP via actual reporting, functional reporting or through deliberations or analysis.

    The PSES policy should specifically identify which materials or information falls into which pathway. Keep in mind that privileged information via the deliberations or analysis pathway automatically becomes PSWP and cannot be dropped out for another purpose.

    Many hospitals which are members in a PSO, such as Ingalls Hospital, electronically report their incident reports. Incident reports obviously take many different forms. But the reality is a hospital generates hundreds, if not thousands, of incident reports and more likely than not, does not send every single one of them to the PSO. If your PSES policy states all such incident reports are to be reported, but are not in fact sent to the PSO, a plaintiff attorney could argue that report should not be considered PSWP. If the hospital does want to treat them as PSWP, then these unreported incident and other reports should either be functionally reported or treated as deliberations or analysis.

    Michael R. Callahan serves as outside legal counsel for both Clarity PSO and Ingalls Hospital and assisted the hospital's defense attorney in the Daley appeal.

Additional resource information, including PowerPoint presentations regarding the PSQIA, case law interpretations and related developments, is available here.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
Contact
more
less

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.