42 C.F.R. § 2.20
Relationship to state laws
The statute authorizing the regulations in this part (42 U.S.C. 290dd-2) does not preempt the field of law which they cover to the exclusion of all state laws in that field. If a use or disclosure permitted under the regulations in this part is prohibited under state law, neither the regulations in this part nor the authorizing statute may be construed to authorize any violation of that state law. However, no state law may either authorize or compel any use or disclosure prohibited by the regulations in this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1990–2012 · leading case: St. Anthony's Med. Ctr. v. H.S.H., 974 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
St. Anthony's Med. Ctr. v. H.S.H., 974 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “On appeal, defendant argued that the hospital published his medical records by unreasonable means because 42 C.F.R. Section 2.20, cited in St. Anthony’s transmission of defendant’s medical records to Mr.”
Hicks v. Talbott Recovery Sys., Inc., 196 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 1999). “42 C.F.R. 2.20 (emphasis added). 28 In an affidavit accompanying his complaint, Dr.”
Behar v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383 (M.D. Penn. 2011). “Inasmuch as courts have held that the applicable federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 , which states that "no State law may either authorize or compel any disclosure prohibited by these regulations,” does not give rise to a private cause of action, Plaintiff concedes that he is…”
JANE H. v. Rothe, 488 N.W.2d 879 (N.D. 1992). “42 CFR § 2.20 (1991). [Emphasis added] This federal regulation clearly declares that state law may offer more, but not less, disclosure protection than the federal law.”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ridgeview Inst., Inc., 392 S.E.2d 286 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). “42 CFR § 2.20 . In examining the case before us, we conclude that the trial court erred in not authorizing disclosure of the record to itself for an in-camera inspection.”
State v. Bright, 683 A.2d 1055 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996). “In fact, 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 specifically states that: The statutes authorizing these regulations .”
In re of W.H., 158 Misc. 2d 788 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 1993). “(42 CFR 2.20.) Therefore, it is not necessary for the court to engage in an analysis of the Federal regulations and statute, since the State statute is more restrictive in this situation.”
In re Maximo M., 186 Misc. 2d 266 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2000). “reasoned that New York law was more protective of a patient’s right to confidentiality than applicable Federal law, and that, consistent with 42 CFR 2.20, 7 the State statute prohibited disclosure.”
In re D.D.S., 869 P.2d 160 (Alaska 1994). “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1992). . AS 28.35.030(d) requires treatment programs to provide the court with information regarding those persons who, as part of a sentence for driving while intoxicated, are ordered to take part in such programs.”
State v. Toland, 283 P.3d 930 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “42 CFR § 2.20 . For purposes of this appeal, the underlying facts are undisputed except as indicated.”
Matter of DDS, 869 P.2d 160 (Alaska 1994). “" 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 (1992). [2] AS 28.35.030(d) requires treatment programs to provide the court with information regarding those persons who, as part of a sentence for driving while intoxicated, are ordered to take part in such programs.”
in Re A. (Tex. App. 2006). “See also 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 (2002) ("However, no State law may either authorize or compel any disclosure prohibited by these regulations.”
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.