Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.553 (2026)

Policy for protected health information

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

192.553 Policy for protected health information. (1) It is the policy of the State of Oregon that an individual has:

(a) The right to have protected health information of the individual safeguarded from unlawful use or disclosure; and

(b) The right to access and review protected health information of the individual.

(2) In addition to the rights and obligations expressed in ORS 192.553 to 192.581, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy regulations, 45 C.F.R. parts 160 and 164, establish additional rights and obligations regarding the use and disclosure of protected health information and the rights of individuals regarding the protected health information of the individual. [Formerly 192.518]

Note: 192.553 to 192.581 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 192 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

192.555 [1977 c.517 §§2,8(1); 1985 c.565 §24; 1987 c.373 §25; 1987 c.438 §4; 1993 c.131 §3; 1993 c.274 §1; 1993 c.695 §1; 1997 c.142 §1; 1999 c.80 §68; 1999 c.506 §5; 2009 c.541 §8; renumbered 192.586 in 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: A. B. v. The Oregon Clinic, 321 Or. App. 60 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

A. B. v. The Oregon Clinic, 321 Or. App. 60 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “ranting summary judgment to defendant, because she presented evidence creating a genuine issue of mate- rial fact whether defendant’s purpose in disclosing the information was for health care operations or patient or public safety, as permitted under the Health Insurance…”

Classen v. Arete NW, LLC, 254 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “518 was renumbered in 2011 as ORS 192.553 and provides as follows: “(1) It is the policy of the State of Oregon that an individual has: “(a) The right to have protected health information of the individual safeguarded from unlawful use or disclosure; and “(b) The right to access…”

State v. Miller, 395 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” (Citing ORS 192.553; ORS 192.558; 45 CFR parts 160 and 164.”

Hofer v. OHSU, 511 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiff relies on ORS 192.553(1)6 in support of her contention that “medical records clearly qualify as a legally protected interest.”

Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. v. Oregonian Publ'g Co., 373 P.3d 1233 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 3× “More specifically, OHSU suggests that any disclosure of individually identifiable health information is an unreasonable invasion of privacy under either statutory exemption because: (1) that type of information is given special protection limiting *198 disclosure in civil…”

Trumper v. Women's Healthcare Assoc., 345 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In her view, her invocation of HIPAA’s protections reflected fulfillment of a public duty or an important public policy for purposes of a wrongful discharge claim.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Indeed, there is no dispute that, in the course of its work investigating reports of child abuse, filing petitions to estab- lish dependency jurisdiction, carrying out its duties as legal custodian for children made wards of the court, planning for permanency, and facilitating…”

OHSU v. Oregonian Publ'g Co., LLC (Or. 2017). · cites it 7× “Held: For tort claim notices involving patients, (1) the requested information at issue—the claimant names, attorney names, and dates of the alleged torts—is “protected health information” that is confidential pursu- ant to ORS 192.553; (2) the protected health information at…”

M.R. v. Salem Health Hospitals & Clinics (D. Or. 2024). · cites it 4× “Defendant contends that the information disclosed could not plausibly fit the statutory definition of protected health information.”

State v. Villasenor-Sibrian, 563 P.3d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “, ORS 192.553(1)(a) (setting forth the policy “that an individual has * * * [t]he right to have protected health information of the individual safeguarded from unlaw- ful use or disclosure”); 45 CFR § 164.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Indeed, there is no dispute that, in the course of its work investigating reports of child abuse, filing petitions to estab- lish dependency jurisdiction, carrying out its duties as legal custodian for children made wards of the court, planning for permanency, and facilitating…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.553(1) — 3 cases

Hofer v. OHSU, 511 P.3d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “” Plaintiff relies on ORS 192.553(1)6 in support of her contention that “medical records clearly qualify as a legally protected interest.”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S., 536 P.3d 1089 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Indeed, there is no dispute that, in the course of its work investigating reports of child abuse, filing petitions to estab- lish dependency jurisdiction, carrying out its duties as legal custodian for children made wards of the court, planning for permanency, and facilitating…”

Dept. of Human Servs. v. C. E. S. (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Indeed, there is no dispute that, in the course of its work investigating reports of child abuse, filing petitions to estab- lish dependency jurisdiction, carrying out its duties as legal custodian for children made wards of the court, planning for permanency, and facilitating…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.553(1)(a) — 4 cases

A. B. v. The Oregon Clinic, 321 Or. App. 60 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “ranting summary judgment to defendant, because she presented evidence creating a genuine issue of mate- rial fact whether defendant’s purpose in disclosing the information was for health care operations or patient or public safety, as permitted under the Health Insurance…”

State v. Miller, 395 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” (Citing ORS 192.553; ORS 192.558; 45 CFR parts 160 and 164.”

Eldred v. Oregon Anesthesiology Grp., 347 Or. App. 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.553(2) — 4 cases

OHSU v. Oregonian Publ'g Co., LLC (Or. 2017). “Held: For tort claim notices involving patients, (1) the requested information at issue—the claimant names, attorney names, and dates of the alleged torts—is “protected health information” that is confidential pursu- ant to ORS 192.553; (2) the protected health information at…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.553(l)(a) — 1 case

Oregon Health & Sci. Univ. v. Oregonian Publ'g Co., 373 P.3d 1233 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “More specifically, OHSU suggests that any disclosure of individually identifiable health information is an unreasonable invasion of privacy under either statutory exemption because: (1) that type of information is given special protection limiting *198 disclosure in civil…”

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.