NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

WELCH, J.

The plaintiff, Samantha Gray, appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of the defendants, Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc.1 ("Walgreens"), Sedgwick CMS ("Sedgwick"), Chelsea Landry,2 and their liability insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company, which dismissed the plaintiff's petition for damages and for violation of her rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). We affirm the judgment of the district court and issue this memorandum opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).

This action arises out of an incident that occurred in October 2012 when the plaintiff posted a picture of herself on Facebook and the employees at a Walgreens pharmacy in Geismar, Louisiana, who knew and were Facebook friends with the plaintiff, made comments about the picture while they were at work. According to the plaintiff, after viewing the plaintiff's Facebook picture, the employees "discuss[ed] medical and/or personal information about the [plaintiff] via social media and verbally . . . ." The plaintiff filed the instant suit, claiming that as a result of the incident, she suffered injuries and damages, which were attributable to the negligence of Walgreens and Ms. Landry, a Walgreens' employee, and their failure to abide by HIPAA. The defendants answered the suit, generally denying the allegations of the plaintiff's petition.3

The defendants subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment,4 seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims on the basis that the plaintiff would be unable to prove the essential elements of her negligence claim and that the plaintiff had not stated a cause of action for alleged violations of HIPAA. With respect to HIPAA, the defendants maintained that although unauthorized disclosure of medical records was a violation of the privacy rule of HIPAA, such violations were enforced by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights through the imposition of a fine and was not a private cause of action for damages. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.502. The defendants, noting that the plaintiff had not filed a claim with the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, argued that the plaintiff could not support a claim for alleged violations of HIPAA. With respect to the absence of factual support for the other claims made by the plaintiff, the defendants relied on the deposition testimony of Chelsea Landry, Tonya Anthony, and Karen Brown.

Ms. Landry testified that she was employed as a pharmacy technician at Walgreens and that she knew the plaintiff before she started working at Walgreens. She further testified that while using her own phone at work, she discussed the picture the plaintiff posted on Facebook with the pharmacist, Latisha Lucas, who is the plaintiff's cousin. According to Ms. Landry, in the picture the plaintiff posted of herself, the plaintiff was crying and had mucus coming out of her nose. Therefore, she showed the picture to Ms. Lucas and said, "Oh, my god, like, why does she [(the plaintiff)] have this picture on Facebook." (R45) Ms. Landry testified that she never mentioned or discussed the plaintiff's medical records, patient information, or medication, that the plaintiff was not a patient or customer of that Walgreens pharmacy, and that she did not know what medications the plaintiff took. Ms. Landry did admit that she was "written up" for using her phone while at work.

Ms. Anthony, who is also a pharmacy technician at Walgreens, testified that she did not know if the plaintiff was a customer of Walgreens and she had never seen the plaintiff get a prescription filled at the Walgreens pharmacy where Ms. Anthony worked. Ms. Anthony admitted that the picture the plaintiff posted of herself on Facebook was discussed in the pharmacy and that the gist of that conversation was "how ugly [the plaintiff's] face looked and why she would put a picture . . . up like that for the public to see." She further testified that there was never a discussion about the health or medication of the plaintiff.

Ms. Brown, the store manager, testified that shortly after the incident, she called Sedgwick, the third-party administrator, to report what happened. Ms. Brown further testified that the pharmacy technicians were reprimanded for using their cell phones in the pharmacy, but they were not disciplined for any HIPAA violation. Ms. Brown explained that she "was told that they [(the employees)] saw her on Facebook crying and said, Why did she post a picture like this on Facebook" and that based on this explanation, Walgreens determined there had been no violation of HIPAA.

In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit from Crystal Payne.5 According to Ms. Payne, on the date in question, she went to Walgreens to fill a prescription, and while she was there, "she heard the defendants' employee's, [sic]" who "were standing in a circle and wearing uniforms of some type[,]" make the following remark: "How crazy and stupid she looked. She's crazy for posting and knowing she's on crazy medicine." Ms. Payne also stated that she knew the remark was about the plaintiff because the employees mentioned her name.

After a hearing on the matter, the trial court took the matter under advisement. By judgment signed on September 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. From this judgment, the plaintiff now appeals, challenging the dismissal of her claims.6

It is evident from the record herein that this suit is based on gossip that the employees of a Walgreens pharmacy engaged in (while at work) about a picture that the plaintiff posted of herself on her Facebook page. While the plaintiff contends that during this discussion, the employees disclosed her confidential pharmacy records or her health condition, i.e., that she (the plaintiff) was "on crazy medicine," the defendants maintain that the discussion focused on the picture itself and negative comments about how the plaintiff looked, and that there was no discussion regarding the plaintiff's pharmacy records or her health condition. Regardless of the substance of the conversation about the plaintiff by the Walgreens' employees, in order for the plaintiff to succeed in her claim against the defendants, it was essential for the plaintiff to establish that she was a customer of Walgreens such that the employees who were talking about her knew (or could have known) what medications she was taking. The evidence offered by the defendants pointed out the absence of factual support for this essential element of the plaintiff's claims—both of the Walgreens' employees testified that they had never seen the plaintiff at the Walgreens pharmacy and that she was not a customer of Walgreens. In response to the motion, the plaintiff failed to present any competent evidence establishing that she would be able to satisfy this element of her evidentiary burden of proof at trial. Accordingly, based on our de novo review of the record, we find the trial court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the September 4, 2015 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Samantha Gray.

AFFIRMED.