Luigi Mangione’s confidential, 120-page medical history was accidentally emailed to his New York prosecutors not once, but twice — first by Aetna and then by his own defense lawyers, according to a new court filing.
Prosecutors took “appropriate measures” both times, forwarding the confidential health records to the judge and deleting their own copy, the lead assistant district attorney, Joel Seidemann, wrote in revealing what he described as a double-snafu on Friday.
“Mistakes do occur,” Seidemann wrote in his three-page filing — meaning on the part of defense lawyers and Aetna, but not himself.
“Aetna erroneously sent us materials,” he wrote. “Like Aetna, the defense then erred, compounding Aetna’s mistake,” by attaching the very same confidential health records to an email they sent him.
“Once again, we complied with our ethical obligations by asking counsel if she intended to send us the file,” Seidemann wrote.
“When she indicated that she did not and asked that we delete it, we complied with her request and did not take advantage of her error.”
Aetna, meanwhile, defended its own role in the records relay, saying through a spokesman that they got a subpoena, and they answered it.
“Our response is the same as before,” wrote Phil Blando, executive director for communications for Aetna’s parent company, CVS Health. “Aetna received a subpoena for certain medical records, and we provided them appropriately.”
It’s the latest round of finger-pointing in a month-long battle between state-level prosecutors and defense attorneys over the confidential medical records of Mangione, the 27-year-old Maryland native accused in the December shooting murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
The records included “different diagnoses as well as specific medical complaints made by Mr. Mangione,” his lawyers complained in their own filing last month.
Both prosecutors and the defense agree that Seidemann’s May 14 subpoena asked Aetna for very limited data, just Mangione’s health insurance account number and the period of time he was covered.
Past that small patch of common ground, the sides diverge widely.
The defense, led by attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, wrote last month that Seidemann should never have asked directly for Mangione’s health insurance account number, arguing that it is protected under HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you.
What is your job title?
(1 of 2)
What products or services can you approve for purchase in your role?
(2 of 2)
this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising.
By continuing you agree that you accept the
Terms of Service
and
Privacy Policy
.
Thanks for sharing insights about your role.
“The requested information does not appear to be protected by HIPAA, since it did not relate to a condition, treatment, or payment for health care,” Seidemann countered in Friday’s filing.
The sides also differ on what happened once Aetna attached Mangione’s entire health history, in four files, to its June 12, supboeana-response email to Seidemann.
Seidemann wrote in Friday’s filing, that his subpoena “was lawful and properly drafted,” and that, as required, it directed Aetna to return the materials to the judge.
The defense accuses Seidemann of sitting on the sensitive records for 12 days before forwarding them to the judge, and they want to know how the health insurers ended up sending the records directly to the prosecutor.
They’ve asked the judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Gregory Carro, to order “a full evidentiary hearing” to determine possible penalties, including kicking Seidemann off the case.
They’ve asked that the hearing include sworn testimony and the surrender of correspondence between prosecutors and Aetna.
The judge had not issued a decision on calling such a hearing by Friday afternoon. A defense spokesperson declined to comment on Friday’s filing.
Mangione is also charged with murder in a federal indictment that seeks the death penalty. In another, more behind-the-scenes battle, prosecutors in both venues, state and federal, have said they intend to bring Mangione to trial first.
The order of trials has not been worked out.
State court has an advantage, in that Mangione’s case is proceeding more quickly there, given the lack of complicated capital-punishment issues.
The feds, too, have an advantage, in that Mangione is in federal custody, and they have physical control of where he goes. Judges in both venues have said they hope to bring him to trial in 2026.
