California Doctor Accused of Misusing Patient Data in Congressional Campaign

When Dr. Sonia Devgan‑Kacker announced her run for the 26th congressional district in early 2026, she framed herself as a practical problem‑solver rather than a career politician. “I’m not a career politician—I solve problems for a living,” read her campaign website, a line that sounded sincere enough to win over voters in Westlake Village and beyond.

But a former patient, Sean Rose, says the doctor’s campaign took a darker turn. In a lawsuit filed this summer, Rose alleges that the urgent‑care clinic he visited years ago—Westlake Village Urgent Care, owned by Dr. Devgan‑Kacker—used his phone number, taken from his medical record, to send a paid political advertisement straight to his cell.

The text arrived in May 2026, smack in the middle of the primary season. It began with a bright‑capped graphic that read “Paid political ad for Dr. Sonia,” featured the doctor’s smiling portrait, and listed her medical credentials. Below that, a brief note assured recipients that the clinic would remain open “under normal business hours during the campaign.” The message ended with a link to the campaign website and a reminder to vote on June 2.

What raises eyebrows, Rose argues, is that the phone number on the ad belonged to his personal medical file—not a public voter roll. The number that received the campaign blast was the same one the clinic used to remind patients of appointments, a detail that the lawsuit says points directly to an illegal sharing of protected health information.

Rose’s email chain with the clinic shows the practice’s own response. When he asked whether the texts had really come from the urgent‑care office, the staff replied, “It appears that you were a patient at this urgent care a few years ago, which is how we have your phone number. The text message was sent to all previous patients.” They added that a third‑party service had handled the mass‑text distribution.

Later that same day, the clinic sent a follow‑up email attempting to distance itself from the political angle. “The outreach was geographically targeted to members of the local community and was not intended to identify or contact individuals based on patient status,” the message claimed. Rose counters that the targeting was anything but neutral—he lived in the very district Dr. Devgan‑Kacker was campaigning for at the time, and his records were used specifically to reach likely voters.

Under California’s Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, health‑care providers are barred from disclosing patient information without explicit consent. The suit seeks statutory and punitive damages, arguing that the clinic’s actions constitute a clear breach of that law.

Dr. Devgan‑Kacker’s campaign never made it past the June primary, and the doctor has not publicly responded to requests for comment. Still, the case spotlights a growing concern: the thin line between political outreach and privacy violations, especially when the two intersect in the digital age.

Whether the lawsuit will lead to a courtroom showdown or a settlement remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that patients like Rose are now more wary of how their medical information might be repurposed, and politicians may think twice before turning health‑care databases into campaign tools.