115 Md. App. 428 - Warner v. Lerner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The law] was enacted to provide for the confidentiality of medical records, to establish clear and certain rules for the disclosure of medical records, and generally to bolster the privacy rights of patients. The legislature recognized that, because of the personal and sensitive nature of one's medical records, a patient might experience emotional and financial harm if his medical records are improperly used or disclosed. It was further desired that the Act would enable health care providers to retain the full trust and confidence of their patients.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. (2005) · 128 Md. App. 163 - Shady Grove Psychiatric Group v. State

2. “(1) "Health care provider" means: (i) A person who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized under the Health Occupations Article or § 13-516 of the Education Article to provide health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession or in an approved education or training program; or (ii) A facility where health care is provided to patients or recipients, including a facility as defined in § 10-101 (e) of this article, a hospital as defined in § 19-301 of this article, a related institution as defined in § 19-301 of this article, a health maintenance organization as defined in § 19-701 (g) of this article, an outpatient clinic, and a medical laboratory. (2) "Health care provider" includes the agents, employees, officers, and directors of a facility and the agents and employees of a health care provider.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. (2005) · 94 Op. Att'y Gen. 44 - (2009)

3. “Upon [an] appeal from the granting of a motion to dismiss filed under Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2), an appellate court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded relevant and material facts in the complaint, as well as all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. Odyniec v. Scheider [Schneider], 322 Md. 520, 525 [ 588 A.2d 786 ] (1991). Dismissal is proper only if the alleged facts and permissible inferences, so viewed, would nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff if proven. Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519, 531 , 667 A.2d 624 (1995); Faya v. Almarez [Almaraz], 329 Md. 435, 443 [ 620 A.2d 327 ] (1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 116 Md. App. 327 - Shah v. HealthPlus, Inc.