Confirmed breach. Intrusion Jan 1, 2015–Dec 28, 2020, discovered Dec 28, 2020 — the first regulatory filing landed 57 days later. 2,121 individuals reported across the linked filings.
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.
Regulatory clocksHIPAA✓ HHS notifiedFull clock table in Litigation Timeline
HHS OCRState AGConfirmedLifecycle stage 2 of 3: ConfirmedUnverified claimConfirmedEnforcedmoderate sensitivity
Affected (total reported)
2,121
Data types
3
PHI · Health (basic) · Identity (basic)
Jurisdictions
1
CA
Linked filings
2
HHS OCR · State AG
Timeline
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Breach window
Jan 1, 2015 → Dec 28, 2020
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
2,188 days
Breach discoveredletter-grounded
Dec 28, 2020
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
57 days
🐻California State AGFirst filinglinked via same-victim cross-source · 100%
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Northern California reported an insider incident where an employee inappropriately accessed members' medical records and demographic information. The employee was terminated and policies are being reviewed. No SSN or financial data was involved.
🐻CALIFORNIAHHS OCRMost recentlinked via same-victim cross-source · 100%
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Northern California reported to HHS on 2021-02-23 a Unauthorized Access/Disclosure affecting 2121 individuals. Breached information located on Electronic Medical Record. An employee impermissibly accessed medical records and ePHI (names, DOB, phone, email, photos). The CE notified HHS, individuals, and media, provided credit monitoring, and sanctioned the employee.
Affected (this filing): 2,121
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.