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
A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).
HERE THE TOWN PASSED A LOCAL LAW REQUIRING THE CLOSURE OF A LANDFILL OWNED AND OPERATED BY SMI; BECAUSE SMI’S PROPERTY IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE LOCAL LAW, SMI NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE “ENVIRONMENTAL HARM” AS AN ELEMENT OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DECLARATION THAT THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; SMI HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ISSUING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CT APP). ​
INDIGENT PARTIES WHO ARE ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; HERE IN THESE PERMANENT-NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED MOTHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).
ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDED THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACTED RATIONALLY IN APPROVING THE USE OF A BUILDING AS A HOMELESS SHELTER ITS JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS DONE; THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER FOR A HEARING ON THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING (CT APP).
TEXT EXCHANGES WITH AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE RAPE AND SEXUAL-ABUSE VICTIM DELETED BY DEFENDANT FROM HIS CELL PHONE AND SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED DO NOT CONSTITUTE “NEWLY DISCOVERED” EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (CT APP). ​
​ IN A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TELECAST RIGHTS FOR TWO MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAMS, THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED ITS POWERS, WHICH WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BY IMPOSING A MONEY JUDGMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS AFFIRMED BUT THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS VACATED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (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 © 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...