Prescriptions, orders and records required by sections
21a-243 to
21a-282, inclusive, and stocks of controlled substances shall be open for inspection only to federal, state, county and municipal officers, whose duty it is to enforce the laws of this state or of the United States relating to controlled substances, and to third party payors having a formal agreement or contract to audit such prescriptions, orders and records in connection with claims submitted to such payors. No such officer or third party payor having knowledge by virtue of his office of any such prescription, order or record shall divulge such knowledge, except in connection with a civil action or criminal prosecution in court or before a licensing or registration board or officer, to which action, prosecution or proceeding the person to whom such prescriptions, orders or records relate is a party.
(1967, P.A. 555, S. 27; 1972, P.A. 278, S. 17; P.A. 73-203; P.A. 87-129, S. 6.)
History: 1972 act substituted “substances” for “drugs” and replaced reference to repealed Sec. 19-450 with reference to Sec. 19-451; P.A. 73-203 required that prescriptions, orders, etc. be open to inspection by third party payors having formal agreement or contract to perform audit and specified that information is to be divulged in connection with civil actions or criminal prosecutions; Sec. 19-471 transferred to Sec. 21a-265 in 1983; P.A. 87-129 substituted reference to Sec. 21a-243 for Sec. 21a-242, repealed by the same act.
Cited. 207 C. 698. Law enforcement officials allowed access to prescription records for controlled substances upon consent of pharmacist in possession of those records, without the need for search warrant or defendant's prior consent; absent search warrant, no requirement for pharmacist to comply with request by law enforcement officials to review prescription records in pharmacist's possession. 259 C. 436.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 2001–2002 · leading case:
State v. Russo, 790 A.2d 1132 (Conn. 2002).
State v. Russo, 790 A.2d 1132 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 28× “” General Statutes § 21a-265 further provides that “[n]o such officer or third party payor having knowledge by virtue of his office of any such prescription .”
Russo v. City of Hartford, 158 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D. Conn. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Conn.Gen. Stat. § 21a-265. Because of the statute, the state defendants argue, Russo did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and, therefore, he cannot demonstrate a constitutional violation.”
Russo v. City of Hartford, 184 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D. Conn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The court relied on Connecticut General Statutes § 21a-265, which permits administrative inspection of prescription records, as the basis for holding any mistake by the State Defendants objectively reasonable if they used the records to process an arrest warrant for Russo.”
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.