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 – Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC

Posted on 2020-06-232020-08-28

The question in this case is whether Public Health Law § 18(2)(e) implies a private right of action for damages against healthcare providers that overcharge for copies of medical records.

Public Health Law § 18 allows people to access their medical records that are maintained by a healthcare provider. Under §18(2)(e), healthcare providers may “impose a reasonable charge for all inspections and copies,” so long as the charge is no more than 75 cents per page. Section 13 of the Public Health Law grants private citizens the right to bring a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel compliance with § 18(2)(e), and § 12 allows the Commissioner of Health (through fines) and the Attorney General (through an injunction) to enforce §18(2)(e). But nowhere does the Public Health Law expressly allow a suit for damages if a healthcare provider charges more than 75 cents per page.

In 2016, Vicky Ortiz sought to access medical records maintained by New York Presbyterian Hospital. The hospital arranged for IOD, Inc., to fulfill the request. IOD charged Ortiz $1.50 per page to copy her medical records. Ortiz paid the amount under protest. She then sued IOD, its successor (Ciox Health), and New York Presbyterian Hospital in federal court, claiming, among other things, that the defendants violated Public Health Law § 18(2)(e) by charging $1.50 per page—more than twice the statutory maximum. She sought damages for the overcharge. The district court granted the defendants judgment on the pleadings, holding that § 18(2)(e) does not provide for a private right of action.

The Second Circuit certified to the Court of Appeals the question whether §18(2)(e) implies a private right of action for damages. The court observed that the Court of Appeals had not considered the issue. Nor had New York’s intermediate appellate courts provided guidance on how the Court of Appeals would decide the issue. The sole appellate decision, from the First Department, answered the question “in one sentence, without analysis,” and thus provided insufficient guidance.

The Court of Appeals accepted the certified question.

By Scott on 2020-06-23.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com