How defendant confronts de facto endoresement?

Question

Legal case, that includes unauthorized release of records to hospice, was filed 1.5 years ago. 
If hypothetically information services providers disclosed by themselves patient's records specifically to hospice apparently intentionally (and somehow obtained other data needed for referral that was not in records that they could produce) how hospital can deny endorsement?

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Under California law, if information services providers disclosed a patient's records to a hospice without authorization, the hospital can deny endorsement by demonstrating that the disclosure was not sanctioned by the hospital and that it violated established privacy protocols. The hospital would need to provide evidence that it had appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect patient information and that the actions of the information services providers were independent and unauthorized. 
 
The hospital can argue that it had no knowledge of the unauthorized disclosure and did not approve or endorse the release of the records. This defense can be strengthened by showing documentation of internal training programs, compliance audits, and disciplinary actions taken against the individuals responsible for the breach. These measures indicate the hospital's commitment to patient privacy and its proactive steps to prevent such occurrences. 
 
Additionally, the hospital can emphasize that the unauthorized disclosure was an isolated incident and not reflective of its standard practices. By illustrating that it has taken corrective actions to prevent future breaches, the hospital can further distance itself from the actions of the information services providers, reinforcing its stance that it did not endorse or support the unauthorized release of patient records.

Q: How defendant confronts de facto endoresement?