42 C.F.R. § 2.3

Civil and criminal penalties for violations

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

(a) Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2(a)-(d), shall be subject to the applicable penalties under sections 1176 and 1177 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320d-5 and 1320d-6.

(b) Limitation on criminal or civil liability. A person who is acting on behalf of an investigative agency having jurisdiction over the activities of a part 2 program or other person holding records under this part (or employees or agents of that part 2 program or person holding the records) shall not incur civil or criminal liability under 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2(f) for use or disclosure of such records inconsistent with this part that occurs while acting within the scope of their employment in the course of investigating or prosecuting a part 2 program or person holding the record, if the person or investigative agency demonstrates that the following conditions are met:

(1) Before presenting a request, subpoena, or other demand for records, or placing an undercover agent or informant in a health care practice or provider, as applicable, such person acted with reasonable diligence to determine whether the regulations in this part apply to the records, part 2 program, or other person holding records under this part. Reasonable diligence means taking all of the following actions where it is reasonable to believe that the practice or provider provides substance use disorder diagnostic, treatment, or referral for treatment services:

(i) Searching for the practice or provider among the substance use disorder treatment facilities in the online treatment locator maintained by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

(ii) Searching in a similar state database of treatment facilities where available.

(iii) Checking a provider's publicly available website, where available, or its physical location to determine whether in fact such services are provided.

(iv) Viewing the provider's Patient Notice or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) if it is available online or at the physical location.

(v) Taking all these actions within a reasonable period of time (no more than 60 days) before requesting records from, or placing an undercover agent or informant in, a health care practice or provider.

(2) The person followed all of the applicable provisions in this part for any use or disclosure of the received records under this part that occurred, or will occur, after the person or investigative agency knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that it received records under this part.

(c) Enforcement. The provisions of 45 CFR part 160, subparts C, D, and E, shall apply to noncompliance with this part in the same manner as they apply to covered entities and business associates for noncompliance with 45 CFR parts 160 and 164.

[89 FR 12618, Feb. 16, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: United States v. Stephen J. Eide, 875 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Stephen J. Eide, 875 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (a) (1988). The issue, then, is whether the VAMC where Eide received treatment is a “federally assisted alcohol and drug abuse program” within the meaning of the statute.”

Rick R. Ellison v. Cocke Cnty., Tennessee & David Kickliter, M.D., 63 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 1995). “§ 290dd — 2(f); 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.3 (b)(3) et seq., but not by aggrieved private plaintiffs.”

Hurt v. State, 694 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “" *1216 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 . Further, 42 C.F.R. § 2.”

Ctr. for Legal Advocacy v. Earnest, 188 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Colo. 2002). “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (a) (1988). Thus, to determine whether the Defendants’ facility is a federally assisted alcohol abuse program it is necessary to look to the regulations accompanying the PHSA.”

In re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury, 854 F. Supp. 1380 (S.D. Ind. 1994). “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (b)(1). That is accomplished by the issuance of a lawful subpoena by an authorized agency, such as that issued by the grand jury earlier in this case.”

Div. of Fam. Servs. v. A.B., 980 A.2d 1045 (Del. Fm. Ct. 2009). “42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (b)(2) (2008). 37 . 42 U.”

State v. Dalton, 2019 Ohio 4364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “{¶ 19} Finally, a criminal fine is the exclusive remedy 42 C.F.R. 2.3 provides for any violation of the federal confidentiality regulations.”

United States v. White, 902 F. Supp. 1347 (D. Kan. 1995). “42 C.F.R. § 2.3 . The confidentiality of those records is not absolute, as the regulations provide for disclosure under certain, limited circumstances.”

United States v. Shinderman, 432 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D. Me. 2006). “42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (b)(3) (2005). Here, the potential violator is the government.”

State v. Ctr. for Drug-Free Living, Inc., 842 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “In fact, 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (b) states that where disclosure is authorized under certain circumstances, nonetheless disclosure is not compelled.”

Rogers v. England, 246 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2007). “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (a) (emphasis added). The restrictions on disclosure only apply to information, “whether or not recorded,” which “[w]ould identify a patient as an alcohol or drug abuser ” and is “drug abuse information” or “alcohol abuse information” obtained by a federally…”

City of Memphis Civil Serv. Comm'n v. Steven Payton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 42 C.F.R. § 2.3 (a). These confidentiality rules “are intended to insure that an alcohol or drug abuse patient in a federally assisted alcohol or drug abuse program is not made more vulnerable by reason of the availability of his or her patient record than an individual who…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.