(a) Receipt of complaints. A part 2 program must provide a process to receive complaints concerning the program's compliance with the requirements of this part.
(b) Right to file a complaint. A person may file a complaint to the Secretary for a violation of this part by a part 2 program, covered entity, business associate, qualified service organization, or lawful holder in the same manner as a person may file a complaint under 45 CFR 160.306 for a violation of the administrative simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.
(c) Refraining from intimidating or retaliatory acts. A part 2 program may not intimidate, threaten, coerce, discriminate against, or take other retaliatory action against any patient for the exercise by the patient of any right established, or for participation in any process provided for, by this part, including the filing of a complaint under this section or § 2.3(c).
(d) Waiver of rights. A part 2 program may not require patients to waive their right to file a complaint under this section or § 2.3 as a condition of the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment, or eligibility for any program subject to this part.
[89 FR 12618, Feb. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1996–2003 · leading case:
State v. Bright, 683 A.2d 1055 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996).
State v. Bright, 683 A.2d 1055 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The drafters of the federal regulations also identified a more unusual objective animating the law in this area: the idea was that is all treatment providers adhered to a comprehensive and rigorous confidentiality scheme, it would help to create a perception 'on the street' that…”
Carr v. Allegheny Health, Educ. & Rsch. Found., 933 F. Supp. 485 (W.D. Pa. 1996).
“§ 290dd-2(f); 42 C.F.R. § 2.4 . In sum, the sweep of the statute, the broad discretion delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the provision for penalties make unmistakable Congress’s intent to vigorously protect the range of records about substance abuse.”
People v. Barrett, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4698 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “( 42 C.F.R. § 2.4 (2002).) 6 Since the relevant evidence was not required to be excluded pursuant to the federal supremacy clause, the California Constitution required it to be admitted.”
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.