You are here: / / PUBLIC HEALTH LAW SECTION 18 (2) (e) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF...

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW SECTION 18 (2) (e) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO MORE THAN $ .75 PER PAGE CAN BE CHARGED FOR MEDICAL RECORDS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurrence, determined there is no private right of action for a violation of Public Health Law section 18 (2) (e), which limits the charge for copies of medical records to $ .75 per page. Defendant charged plaintiff $1.50 per page:

Applying the Sheehy factors here, we conclude that no private cause of action exists for violations of Public Health Law § 18 (2) (e). The first factor is satisfied. Ortiz [plaintiff] is clearly part of a class that section 18 was designed to protect. The original law and its subsequent amendment were intended to increase patient access to medical records, and prevent medical providers from overcharging patients for copies of their medical records … . …

Turning to the second factor, it is unclear whether a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose.  * * * … [G]iven the substantial fines the Commissioner and the Attorney General can impose, the additional deterrent effect of a private right of action is difficult to ascertain.

Even assuming the second factor is satisfied, though, the final factor—consistency with the legislative scheme—is clearly not. … [E]nforcement mechanisms already exist for section 18. First, the Commissioner and Attorney General’s ability to impose substantial fines against providers that overcharge for copies of records acts as a deterrent … . Second, the Attorney General’s duty to seek injunctive relief upon the request of the Commissioner provides a legal mechanism for ending any widespread practices violating section 18. Finally, an individual patient’s ability to commence an article 78 proceeding to enforce the law’s provisions provides recourse for individual patients who are unable to access their records due to illegally high costs. Ortiz v Ciox Health LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06425, Ct App 11-18-21

 

You might also like
There Was Sufficient Evidence Defendant Was Responsible for a Witness’ Refusal to Testify to Allow the People to Present the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony at Trial
THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST NYC ALLEGING CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM AN UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX SCHEME (CT APP).
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH TWO OF MOTHER’S FIVE CHILDREN, AS FULL-TIME COLLEGE STUDENTS, WERE INELIGIBLE FOR THE SNAP (FOOD STAMP) PROGRAM, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS HOUSEHOLD INCOME, RENDERING THE FAMILY INELIGIBLE FOR THE SNAP PROGRAM (CT APP).
German Museum Proved It Had Superior Title to Ancient Assyrian Gold Tablet in Decedent’s Estate/Doctrine of Laches Did Not Apply
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE GUARANTY OF RENT DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WAS A “GOOD GUY” GUARANTY; THE GUARANTOR’S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE LANDLORD ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES (CT APP). ​
Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should Not Be Added to the Jury Award to Determine the Amount of the Contingency Fee

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EXPERT TESTIMONY ON FALSE CONFESSION AND CROSS-RACIAL IDENDITIFICATION/MISIDENTIFICATION... THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPLAY OF STATUTORY TEXT...