close
close

Lawsuit against former Bragg doctor for sharing medical records dismissed

Charges were dropped earlier this year against a former Fort Bragg doctor who was accused of providing medical records to an undercover agent posing as a Russian agent, according to court documents.

Maj. Jamie Lee Henry, 40, was charged with conspiracy and disclosure of confidential health records.

Henry, who had a Secret security clearance that gave him access to classified information, worked as an internist at Fort Bragg, according to the indictment filed in September 2022 in the U.S. District Court for Northern Maryland.

Henry's wife, Anna Gabrielian, 37, of Rockville, Maryland, was charged with the same

The couple's case was dismissed earlier this year, meaning the charges cannot be reinstated, after the court found their right to a speedy trial had been violated.

In her May opinion, Judge Stephanie Gallagher said Gabrielian and Henry were doctors accused of providing medical records of American government employees and their families to an undercover agent “who they believed was an agent of the Russian government.”

According to court records, this was the first case in which the federal government has brought charges against someone for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act with the alleged intent to cause “malicious harm” to the U.S. government.

“Cases tried under new legal theories often present new problems for the court,” Gallagher said in her statement. “This case is no exception.”

First trial and indictment

According to court records, the first trial against Gabrielian and Henry ended on June 1, 2023, without a jury agreement.

The indictment alleges that in August 2022, Gabrielian provided an undercover U.S. government agent posing as a Russian agent with the medical records and notes of the spouse of an Office of Naval Intelligence employee; an Air Force veteran; a retired Army officer; a Department of Defense employee; the spouse of an Army veteran; and records of at least two widows of Army veterans.

According to the judge's opinion filed the same day as the dismissal, the documents provided by Gabrielian and Henry did not involve “any truly important person or someone whose medical information is protected by special measures.”

The indictment states that Gabrielian and Henry wanted to help Russia by providing usable medical records of American soldiers.

Gabrielian and Henry stated in an April 2023 application that it was not their intention to help Russia. However, Henry told the undercover agent that they wanted to provide medical assistance to “both sides” in the war between Russia and Ukraine because “nothing good” could come from the conflict.

Remaining charges and classified information

After the jury failed to reach a consensus and the judge granted the defense's motion to acquit on the malicious wounding charge, Henry and Gabrielian still faced charges of intent to maliciously harm the United States because the documents they provided were intended to gain the support of the Russian government and “secure the confidence of the alleged Russian agent,” the statement said.

The judge concluded that the defense's claim that “certain classified information was relevant to its defense” led the prosecution to “over-extend its authority under the Classified Information Procedures Act.” The judge found that the government's stance contributed to a violation of the defendants' right to a speedy trial.

The court found that the U.S. attorney's sending requests for evidence to the National Security Division, waiting months for a response, failing to conduct background checks on the attorney, and failing to inform the court of a proposed expert witness resulted in unnecessary delays.

The court's statement states that prosecutors should have submitted security clearance applications immediately in November to grant defense attorneys access to classified information.

The judge said the court did not hear from either party about the classified information, security clearances, or the Speedy Trial Act for 155 days, from November 21, 2023, to April 25, leading to a May 6 hearing on whether the case should be dismissed under the Speedy Trial Act. It was only after that hearing that the judge announced her decision to dismiss the charges.

“Since November 2023, absolutely nothing productive has happened to move this case closer to a decision,” Gallagher said in her opinion.

With or without prejudice

The court also found that Henry and Gabrielian have been further disadvantaged by the delays since their arrest in September 2022.

The initial lockdown left them unable to work or take their children to school, and despite the conditions that allowed for a lockdown, Henry and Gabrielian were “unable to overcome the impact of the other pre-trial restrictions and the reputational damage caused by the unusual charges in this case.”

“The disruption of employment and the resulting strain on financial resources (in addition to the costs of this litigation, which include the costs of a lengthy jury trial ending in a miscarriage of justice) have caused significant and extraordinary anxiety and distress, particularly given that both adult members of the defendant's family are jointly facing these charges and have been subjected to the same delays,” Gallagher said in her statement.

Gallagher said if the security clearance applications had been processed in a timely manner in November 2023 and all other background investigations had been completed, the case could have been retried in November 2024.

Because of the delays, the earliest date for a retrial would have been May 2025, the judge said.

“The six wasted months resulting from the government’s conduct inevitably resulted in prolonged harm to these defendants,” the opinion states.

The U.S. Attorney's Office filed an appeal in June.

Writer Rachael Riley can be reached at [email protected] or 910-486-3528.

You may also like...