C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER I—PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PROVISIONS › PART 2—CONFIDENTIALITY OF SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER PATIENT RECORDS › Subpart A—Introduction

42 C.F.R. § 2.1

Statutory authority for confidentiality of substance use disorder patient records

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Title 42, United States Code, section 290dd-2(g) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of section 290dd-2. Such regulations may contain such definitions, and may provide for such safeguards and procedures, including procedures and criteria for the issuance and scope of orders under subsection 290dd-2(b)(2)(C), as in the judgment of the Secretary are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of section 290dd-2, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance therewith.

[89 FR 12617, Feb. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 764 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 764 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 5× “Section 30-5 also provides that, if the information at issue is not exempt, a disclosure can be made only "(A) with patient consent as set forth in 42 C.F.R. Sections 2.1(b)(1) and 2.31, and as consistent with pertinent State law.”
Behar v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383 (M.D. Penn. 2011). · cites it 5× “at this court grant judgment in favor of defendants on all counts except for the Supremacy Clause challenge in Count I of the complaint to the extent the PennDOT regulation seeks disclosure of the medical record of any individual participating in a *389 federally assisted…”
Spangler v. Olchowski, 654 S.E.2d 507 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “In that the Plaintiff has put before the Court a claim for emotional distress, all medical records which the Plaintiff asserts are protected from disclosure under 42 CFR §2.1 [sic] et seq. and N.C.G.S. § 122C-52, el seq.”
State v. Andring, 342 N.W.2d 128 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 4582 (1976) (alcohol treatment act) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 42 C.F.R. § 2.1 -.67 (1982) (alcohol treatment regulations).”
Commonwealth v. Mandeville, 436 N.E.2d 912 (Mass. 1982). “42 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 - 2.67-1 (1981). 13 There was evidence that, at the time of the arrest, the defendant told the police that “Paul [Conley] was a good friend and a teacher and he went [to Conley’s home] to discuss radios and insurance.”
Midkiff v. Compton, 693 S.E.2d 172 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “In that the [p]laintiff has put before the Court a claim for emotional distress, all medical records which the [p]laintiff asserts are protected from disclosure under 42 C.F.R. § 2.1 [sic] et seq. and N.C.G.S.”
In re E.P., 645 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). “On 9 September 2005, DSS filed an application with the trial court seeking an order for the disclosure of "confidential alcohol and/or drug abuse patient records" regarding the parents pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq. (2004). The application stated that the records provided…”
State v. Gullekson, 383 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “The trial court was correct in finding the statements not privileged. [2] II Gullekson raises numerous claims that were not presented to the trial court.”
St. Anthony's Med. Ctr. v. H.S.H., 974 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “42 C.F.R. Section 2.1, 2.2, 2.11. Defendant did not plead that he had applied for treatment for alcohol or drug abuse at St.”
In re Marvin M., 711 A.2d 756 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). “” See 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.1 through 2.67. The respondents also claim that the disclosure of their records violated the provisions of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution, article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution and Practice Book (1998 Rev.”
Skakel v. Benedict, 738 A.2d 170 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). “See 42 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq. Those regulations were enacted pursuant to the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, now codified in 42 U.”
In re James L., 738 A.2d 749 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). “…records. See State v. Storlazzi, supra, *349 458 ; General Statutes §§ 52446c, 52-146d; see also 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2; 42 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.1(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Jones, 11 M.J. 817 (1981).
Adolescent & Fam. Inst. of Colorado, Inc. v. Colorado Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Behavioral Health, 316 P.3d 4 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
State ex rel. C.J.V. v. Jamison, 973 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.1(b)(1) — 2 cases
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 764 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). “Section 30-5 also provides that, if the information at issue is not exempt, a disclosure can be made only "(A) with patient consent as set forth in 42 C.F.R. Sections 2.1(b)(1) and 2.31, and as consistent with pertinent State law.”
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Med. Ctr. (Ill. 2001).
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.1(b)(2) — 2 cases
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 764 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001). “Section 30-5 also provides that, if the information at issue is not exempt, a disclosure can be made only "(A) with patient consent as set forth in 42 C.F.R. Sections 2.1(b)(1) and 2.31, and as consistent with pertinent State law.”
M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Med. Ctr. (Ill. 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.