Family Service Rochester reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-02-17. The breach occurred from 12/26/2016 to 1/25/2017. 7 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 7
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Feb 17, 2017. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_662430443d434238 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
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.
MN MT
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Dec 26, 2016
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Jan 26, 2017
Reported by HHS OCR filing
Family Service Rochester reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2017-02-17. The breach occurred from 12/26/2016 to 1/25/2017. 7 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 7
Family Service Rochester, a Minnesota healthcare provider, discovered on January 26, 2017 that an unauthorized user had accessed a computer server containing names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers of approximately 17,037 patients. The entity terminated access to the remote desktop and the compromised "programs" account, disabled stale accounts, revised HIPAA policies, and notified HHS, affected individuals, and the media.
Affected (this filing): 17,037
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.