Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Matter of Plastic Surgery Group v. Comptroller of the State of New York

Posted on 2019-09-182020-08-06

The question in this case is whether an administrative subpoena issued by the Comptroller during an audit must comply with general rule under CPLR 3122(a)(2), which requires a subpoena seeking access to medical records to include a patient authorization for the records.

The State provides health insurance to state and certain local government employees through the Empire Plan, and makes payments to medical providers who provide services to Empire Plan members. In Matter of Handler, M.D., P.C. v. DiNapoli, 23 N.Y.3d 239 (2014), the Court of Appeals held that the Comptroller is authorized to review the records of medical providers that provide health care services to Empire Plan members in auditing expenditures under the program.

Pursuant to that authority, the Comptroller issued an administrative subpoena to petitioner in this case, a health care provider that provides medical services to Empire Plan members. Petitioner sought to quash the subpoena for failure to comply with CPLR 3122(a)(2), which provides that a medical provider “served with a subpoena duces tecum, other than a trial subpoena issued by a court, requesting the production of a patient’s medical records pursuant to this rule need not respond or object to the subpoena if the subpoena is not accompanied by a written authorization by the patient.”

Supreme Court quashed the subpoena because it was not accompanied by the authorizations required by CPLR 3122(a)(2), but the Third Department reversed. The Appellate Division held that CPLR 3122(a)(2) applies only to subpoenas issued by a party to litigation seeking discovery under CPLR 3120 or 3121 after an action or proceeding is commenced; in the Appellate Division’s view, the provision does not apply to the Comptroller’s presuit administrative subpoena issued in this case.

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Return to the case page for Matter of Plastic Surgery Group v. Comptroller of the State of New York.

By Phil on 2019-09-18.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com