Dialysis Clinic Chain Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Infection Risks

New Class Action Alleges DaVita Dialysis Centers Concealed Bloodstream Infection Data from Patients

A proposed class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in March 2024 alleges that DaVita HealthCare Partners, one of the nation's largest dialysis service providers, deliberately concealed critical information about bloodstream infection rates at its treatment facilities from patients and their families.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of patients who received care at DaVita dialysis centers between January 2019 and the present, claims the company knew that infection rates at certain locations significantly exceeded national benchmarks but failed to disclose this information in a manner that would allow patients to make informed decisions about their treatment venue and provider.

The Allegations: What the Lawsuit Claims

According to the complaint, DaVita maintained internal infection surveillance data showing that multiple dialysis centers under its operation experienced central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates substantially higher than the national average. Despite this knowledge, the company allegedly:

• Failed to prominently disclose infection rates to patients seeking dialysis services
• Did not provide patients with comparative infection data across different DaVita facilities
• Continued standard operational practices without implementing heightened safety protocols at high-risk locations
• Did not adequately inform nephrologists and patients of available alternative treatment sites with lower infection rates

Central-line-associated bloodstream infections are among the most serious complications dialysis patients face. These infections can lead to sepsis, hospitalization, prolonged treatment courses with antibiotics, and in some cases, fatality. For dialysis patients—typically individuals with end-stage renal disease who depend on regular treatment to survive—access to safe, infection-controlled environments is not merely a preference but a medical necessity.

"Dialysis patients are among the most vulnerable in the healthcare system," the complaint states. "They have limited ability to change providers mid-treatment and depend entirely on the facilities chosen for them. When companies like DaVita possess safety data and conceal it, patients cannot exercise informed consent about their own medical care."

Background: The Dialysis Industry and Safety Concerns

Dialysis services represent a critical segment of American healthcare. Approximately 800,000 Americans require dialysis treatment, with the vast majority receiving services at large for-profit chains. DaVita alone operates roughly 2,600 dialysis centers across the United States and serves over 244,000 patients.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has long tracked infection rates at dialysis facilities through the Dialysis Facility Report (DFR), which is publicly available and updated quarterly. However, individual patients often lack awareness that this data exists or how to access it. The lawsuit's core argument centers on the distinction between data being theoretically public and information being actively disclosed to affected patients at the point of care decision-making.

Prior litigation and regulatory action against dialysis providers has revealed patterns of cost-cutting that may compromise patient safety. In 2022, DaVita agreed to pay $4.1 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it submitted false billing claims to Medicare related to staffing levels at its facilities. The company neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing in that settlement.

Why This Lawsuit Matters to Consumers

The case raises important questions about corporate transparency in healthcare and patients' rights to safety information. Even when data is technically public, class action litigation can force companies to acknowledge their obligations to actively inform patients rather than relying on patients to discover information independently.

The lawsuit also highlights an asymmetry in power between large healthcare corporations and vulnerable patient populations. Dialysis patients typically cannot easily switch providers mid-treatment without significant disruption to their medical care. This dependence may give companies less incentive to prioritize transparency about safety metrics.

If successful, the class action could establish precedent requiring dialysis providers and potentially other healthcare entities to implement disclosure protocols that ensure patients receive comparative safety information before selecting treatment locations.

Current Status and What to Expect

As of the most recent docket updates in December 2024, the case remains in the early stages. DaVita has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the company fulfilled any disclosure obligations and that infection rates are matters of statistical difference rather than fraudulent concealment. The court has not yet ruled on these motions.

The litigation timeline typically extends 18 to 36 months from this stage, depending on court scheduling and whether the parties pursue settlement negotiations. Class certification—a critical step that would allow individual patients to join the lawsuit collectively—has not yet been decided.

What Affected Patients Should Know

If you received dialysis treatment at a DaVita facility at any point since January 2019, you may be part of the class if the case is certified. Here's what you should understand:

Monitoring the Case: Class members are typically notified automatically if a settlement is reached or the class is certified. You can also monitor the docket independently through the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado's electronic filing system (PACER) using the case number assigned to the lawsuit. Legal notices will provide specific instructions for submitting claim forms if you qualify.

Accessing Infection Data Now: Dialysis facility infection rates are publicly available through CMS's Dialysis Facility Report. You can access this information at dialysisdata.cms.hhs.gov. This may be helpful if you are currently selecting a dialysis provider or evaluating your current facility's safety record.

Discussing Safety with Healthcare Providers: If you are a dialysis patient or have a family member receiving dialysis, discussing infection prevention practices and facility safety metrics with your nephrologist and dialysis care team remains advisable regardless of any pending litigation.

Broader Implications for Healthcare Accountability

This lawsuit is one of several recent cases challenging transparency practices in specialized healthcare segments. Similar class actions have targeted other medical service providers for failing to disclose safety metrics or conflicts of interest that affect patient care decisions.

The case may influence how healthcare regulators and industry groups approach transparency requirements going forward. The American Nephrology Society and other medical organizations have advocated for standardized patient disclosure protocols, and litigation like this can accelerate industry-wide adoption of best practices.

For now, dialysis patients and their advocates are watching closely to see whether courts will require major healthcare corporations to treat safety transparency not as optional supplementary information but as a fundamental obligation in informed consent.