45 C.F.R. § 164.104
Applicability
(a) Except as otherwise provided, the standards, requirements, and implementation specifications adopted under this part apply to the following entities:
(1) A health plan.
(2) A health care clearinghouse.
(3) A health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter.
(b) Where provided, the standards, requirements, and implementation specifications adopted under this part apply to a business associate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: United States v. Yazzie, 998 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (D.N.M. 2014).
United States v. Yazzie, 998 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (D.N.M. 2014). “2d at 1259 (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 ). The Court also concluded that the plaintiff established that his right to privacy in his medical records was clearly established at the time, precluding the sheriff from qualified immunity.”
Murray v. State, 245 S.W.3d 37 (Tex. App. 2008). “45 C.F.R. § 164.104 (2006). The stated purposes for the regulations include the protection and enhancement of consumers’ rights of access to their health information and the control of the “inappropriate use of that information.”
Tapia v. City of Albuquerque, 10 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (D.N.M. 2014). “2d at 1259 (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 ). The Court also concluded that the plaintiff established that his right to privacy in his medical records was clearly established at the time, precluding the sheriff from qualified immunity.”
Kerns v. Bd. of Com'rs of Bernalillo Cnty., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D.N.M. 2010). “While White did not appear to be relying upon HIPAA’s law-enforcement exception, it is not clear he needed to cite to HIPAA or otherwise have it in mind when he made his request, as HIPAA restrains the “health plan, health care clearinghouse, or health care provider” from…”
Tapia v. City of Albuquerque, 10 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (D.N.M. 2014). “2d at 1259 (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 ). The Court also concluded that the plaintiff established that his right to privacy in his medical records was clearly established at the time, precluding the sheriff from qualified immunity.”
Trumper v. Women's Healthcare Assoc., 345 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “45 CFR §§ 164.104 (a), 164.502(a)(1) (2025).”
Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. Mellado Lopez, Carlos (2024). “58 45 CFR § 164.104 . 59 A modo de referencia véase, J.”
Bundy v. Alford (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “102 (a) (2013); 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 (a) (2013). Grandparents are not covered entities.”
Hall v. State Farm Ins. (10th Cir. 2018). “See 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 . On appeal Plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s substantive rulings but sets forth several grounds for reversal: (1) the decision below was based on a false declaration submitted by State Farm; (2) opposing counsel violated Kansas’s rules of…”
Y.C. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “( 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 (a) (2020).) The disclosure of “psychotherapy notes” is specifically mentioned in the regulations as a disclosure for which authorization is required.”
Y.C. v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “( 45 C.F.R. § 164.104 (a) (2020).) The disclosure of “psychotherapy notes” is specifically mentioned in the regulations as a disclosure for which authorization is required.”
State Of Washington, V. Johnson & Johnson (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “45 C.F.R. § 164.104 (a)(1), (3). The rule defines protected health information to mean “individually identifiable health information”—that is, health information “[t]hat identifies the individual” or “[w]ith respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information…”
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.