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
Notations Added by Judge to Verdict Sheet to Help Jurors Differentiate the Counts Did Not Violate CPL 310.20
A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT POWER BUGGIES BE OPERATED BY TRAINED, COMPETENT, DESIGNATED PERSONNEL DOES NOT SET FORTH A SPECIFIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT SUCH THAT IT GIVES RISE TO A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNTRAINED OPERATOR LOST CONTROL OF A POWER BUGGY (CT APP).
Judge Who Had Represented Defendant Not Required to Recuse Himself
THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC) TO DRAW THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS; THE IRC IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS REDISTRICTING PLAN BY FEBRUARY 28, 2024 (CT APP). ​
HERE A WITNESS TO THE SHOOTING IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; UNDER THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED; THE COURT OFFERED GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE OR AVOID THE SITUATION (CT APP).
THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICY; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE PRECLUDED THE ASSIGNEE FROM BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THE POLICY AGAINST THE INSURER (CT APP).
TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK FOR A “FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO INFLATE RENTS” ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ALLEGE RELIANCE ON A FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION; IT IS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF FRAUD OR A COLORABLE CLAIM OF FRAUD (CT APP). ​

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 © 2025 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...