Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filed Apr 16, 2019. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_fc79c424b7d54e1c · 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.
CA MT
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 9, 2019
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Feb 19, 2019
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Centrelake Medical Group reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2019-04-16. The breach occurred from 1/9/2019 to 2/19/2019. 8 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 8
Centrelake Medical Group, Inc. reported to HHS on 2019-04-16 a Hacking/IT Incident affecting 197,661 individuals. Breached information located on Network Server. The incident involved ransomware encrypting PHI (names, addresses, SSN, driver's license, diagnoses, treatment). The entity provided credit monitoring and identity restoration services and implemented additional security safeguards.
Affected (this filing): 197,661
Centrelake Medical Group, Inc. disclosed a ransomware incident affecting 195,144 California residents. The attack occurred between January 9, 2019, and February 19, 2019, when an unknown third party infected servers with a virus that prohibited access to patient files. Compromised data included names, SSNs, driver's licenses, and PHI. Centrelake engaged forensic investigators, restored systems, and offered one year of identity monitoring via Kroll.
Affected (this filing): 195,144
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.