Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Apr 13, 2015 → Jun 4, 2015. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_1efdb1b078304e02 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
CA MT
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Apr 5, 2015
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Stanislaus Surgical Hospital reported a data breach to the California Attorney General. The incident occurred on April 5, 2015. The attached consumer notification letter is empty in the provided source, so specific details regarding the nature of the breach, data types exposed, and affected individuals are not available in the text content. The organization is a healthcare provider.
Stanislaus Surgical Hospital reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2015-05-06. The breach occurred on 4/5/2015. 1 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 1
Stanislaus Surgical Hospital reported to HHS on 2015-06-04 a Theft affecting 1170 individuals. Breached information located on Desktop Computer, Other Portable Electronic Device, Paper/Films. On April 4, 2015, two paper binders containing PHI of up to 1,166 individuals were stolen. The type of PHI involved was financial information. The CE filed a police report, provided breach notification, and offered credit monitoring. Remediation included improved physical security, updated access procedures, conversion to a paperless payment system, encryption of shared drive information, and employee training.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.
Affected (this filing): 1,170