UpHealth Sued for Negligence in Data Breach Case


A complaint was filed on Wednesday in the District of Utah by plaintiff James T. Buechler (on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated) against defendants MedQuest Pharmacy, Inc., Innovations Group, Inc. (IGI), and UpHealth, Inc. The class action complaint alleges that the company left personal information vulnerable to hackers.

Buechler explains that he and 40,000 similarly situated people were harmed at the hands of the defendants due to a data reach that occurred from October 27, 2021, to October 30, 2021. This breach purportedly resulted in cybercriminals gaining access to the defendants’ “inadequately protected” systems, which led to the plaintiff’s sensitive personal information being unprotected.

Defendant UpHealth is a digital health technology platform with subsidiaries MedQuest and IGI. The plaintiff explains that since he and the class members provided their personal and medical information to the defendants, the defendants assumed a duty to protect the information. Buechler asserts that the defendants breached their duty to securely store the information, which resulted in cybercriminals accessing the information. Included in the personal and medical information was patient contact information, social security numbers, health insurance information, medical and treatment information, and more.

Buechler claims that the misconduct of the defendants and actions of the cybercriminals will enable the cybercriminals to “commit personal and medical identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of nearly 40,000 individuals.” These risks, the plaintiff explains, will follow the plaintiff and class members around for the remainder of their lives.

The complaint argues that the plaintiff and class members have been subjected to substantial harm due to the defendant’s misconduct. The suit cites negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff is seeking class certification, favorable judgment on each count, injunctive and equitable relief, litigation fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, a trial by jury, and any other relief deemed just by the court.

The plaintiff is represented in the litigation by Parsons Behle & Latimer.