42 C.F.R. § 2.64

Procedures and criteria for orders authorizing uses and disclosures for noncriminal purposes

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

(a) Application. An order authorizing the use or disclosure of patient records or testimony relaying the information contained in the records for purposes other than criminal investigation or prosecution may be applied for by any person having a legally recognized interest in the use or disclosure which is sought in the course of a civil, administrative, or legislative proceeding. The application may be filed separately or as part of a pending civil action in which the applicant asserts that the patient records or testimony relaying the information contained in the records are needed to provide evidence. An application must use a fictitious name, such as John Doe, to refer to any patient and may not contain or otherwise disclose any patient identifying information unless the patient is the applicant or has given written consent (meeting the requirements of the regulations in this part) to disclosure or the court has ordered the record of the proceeding sealed from public scrutiny.

(b) Notice. A court order under this section is only valid when the patient and the person holding the records from whom disclosure is sought have received:

(1) Adequate notice in a manner which does not disclose patient identifying information to other persons; and

(2) An opportunity to file a written response to the application, or to appear in person, for the limited purpose of providing evidence on the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of the court order as described in § 2.64(d).

(c) Review of evidence: Conduct of hearing. Any oral argument, review of evidence, or hearing on the application must be held in the judge's chambers or in some manner which ensures that patient identifying information is not disclosed to anyone other than a party to the proceeding, the patient, or the person holding the record, unless the patient requests an open hearing in a manner which meets the written consent requirements of the regulations in this part. The proceeding may include an examination by the judge of the patient records referred to in the application.

(d) Criteria for entry of order. An order under this section may be entered only if the court determines that good cause exists. To make this determination the court must find that:

(1) Other ways of obtaining the information are not available or would not be effective; and

(2) The public interest and need for the use or disclosure outweigh the potential injury to the patient, the physician-patient relationship and the treatment services.

(e) Content of order. An order authorizing a use or disclosure must:

(1) Limit use or disclosure to only those parts of the patient's record, or testimony relaying those parts of the patient's record, which are essential to fulfill the objective of the order;

(2) Limit use or disclosure to those persons whose need for information is the basis for the order; and

(3) Include such other measures as are necessary to limit use or disclosure for the protection of the patient, the physician-patient relationship and the treatment services; for example, sealing from public scrutiny the record of any proceeding for which use or disclosure of a patient's record, or testimony relaying the contents of the record, has been ordered.

[82 FR 6115, Jan. 18, 2017, as amended at 89 FR 12629, Feb. 16, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Carter v. Knox County Office of Family & Children
Carter v. Knox County Office of Family & Children (2002) indctapp · cites it 8× “Waiver notwithstanding, Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting the Exhibits at the termination hearing because it ignored the procedural mandates for disclosure of the privileged material, The procedures for ordering disclosure of privileged medical records, for…”
In re Adoption (And (2018) massappct · cites it 4× “§ 290dd-2(b) ; 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (1987). One such circumstance is where disclosure is "authorized by an appropriate order of a court of competent jurisdiction granted after application showing good cause therefor.”
Adoption of Virgil. (2018) massappct · cites it 4× “" 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d) (1987). The mother does not appear to be challenging whether there was good cause to disclose her drug abuse treatment records.”
Heartview Foundation v. Glaser (1985) nd · cites it 7× “No written consent by any patient was obtained in this instance and therefore disclosure could be had only by a court order, the requirements for which are set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 : “(b) Notice. In any proceeding [for a court order to authorize disclosure] .”
United States of America Ex Rel. Janet Chandler, ph.d., Cross-Appellee v. Cook County, Illinois, 1 (2002) ca7 · cites it 3× “” See 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d). It is not only the privacy rights of individual patients that are at stake here, but also the continued effectiveness and viability of important substance abuse treatment programs.”
In re B.S. (1995) vt · cites it 5× “§ 290dd-2(b)(2)(C); 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d). Appellant and amicus argue that the court failed to follow proper procedures in determining whether good cause was present, and erred in finding good cause.”
JANE H. v. Rothe (1992) nd · cites it 6× “42 CFR § 2.64 (d) (1991). Before disclosure can be ordered, the court must find that the information sought in the medical records is not available by other effective means.”
Tucker v. Department of Social & Health Services (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “DSHS requested an order authorizing disclosure under 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 . 4 After considering DSHS’s application, the trial court ordered Harris to testify.”
In re Marvin M. (1998) connappct · cites it 4× “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d). In this case, the department sought disclosure of records that would show that the respondents had not stopped using drugs.”
Spangler v. Olchowski (2007) ncctapp · cites it 4× “” 42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d). Like other jurisdictions, we interpret the language of § 2.”
Mosier v. American Home Patient, Inc. (2001) flnd · cites it 3× “42 C.F.R. § 2.64 (d) (implementing the statute as authorized by 42 U.”
Commissioner of Social Services v. David R. S. (1982) ny · cites it 3× “there is evidence that disclosure would have an adverse effect upon successful treatment or rehabilitation of the patient or would impair the effectiveness of the program, or other programs similarly situated, in the treatment or rehabilitation of other patients, the application…”
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(a) — 1 case
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(b) — 2 cases
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(b)(1) — 1 case
Carter v. Knox County Office of Family & Children (2002) indctapp “Waiver notwithstanding, Mother argues that the trial court erred by admitting the Exhibits at the termination hearing because it ignored the procedural mandates for disclosure of the privileged material, The procedures for ordering disclosure of privileged medical records, for…”
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(c) — 2 cases
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(d) — 5 cases
Nelson v. Labor Finders (2005) fladistctapp
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(d)(1) — 2 cases
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(d)(2) — 2 cases
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(e) — 2 cases
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(e)(1) — 1 case
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(e)(2002) — 1 case
in Re A. (2006) texapp
— 42 C.F.R. § 2.64(e)(3) — 2 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.