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 B—General Provisions

42 C.F.R. § 2.20

Relationship to state laws

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

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.

[89 FR 12623, Feb. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1990–2012 · leading case: St. Anthony's Medical Center v. H.S.H.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
St. Anthony's Medical Center v. H.S.H. (1998) moctapp “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 System, Inc. (1999) ca11 · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. 2.20 (emphasis added). 28 In an affidavit accompanying his complaint, Dr.”
Behar v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (2011) pamd “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 (1992) nd “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 Casualty & Surety Co. v. Ridgeview Institute, Inc. (1990) gactapp “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 (1996) delsuperct · cites it 2× “In fact, 42 C.F.R. § 2.20 specifically states that: The statutes authorizing these regulations .”
In re of W.H. (1993) nycfamct “(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. (2000) nycfamct “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. (1994) alaska “” 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 (2012) orctapp “42 CFR § 2.20 . For purposes of this appeal, the underlying facts are undisputed except as indicated.”
Matter of DDS (1994) alaska “" 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. (2006) texapp “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.