307 F. Supp. 2d 705 - Law v. Zuckerman’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2020
1 district · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1171 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1176 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1178 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on 965 F. Supp. 741 - Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs · 910 F. Supp. 1115 - Camden v. State of Maryland · 139 Md. App. 122 - Butler-Tulio v. Scroggins · Ngo v. Standard Tools & Equipment, Co. · 295 F. Supp. 2d 585 - A HELPING HAND, LLC v. Baltimore County, Md.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Permitted disclosures. A covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding: (i) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order; or (n) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal, if (A) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance ... from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the protected health information that has been requested has been given notice of the request; or (B) The covered entity receives satisfactory assurance ... from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made by such party to secure a qualified protective order that meets the requirements of paragraph (e)(l)(v) of this section.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.16, 2004)("ex parte communications regarding the disclosure of health information, while not expressly prohibited by HIPAA, create ... too great a risk of running afoul of that statute's strong federal policy in favor of protecting the privacy of patient medical records”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“■ [1] the state law prohibits or restricts a use or a disclosure of information where. HI-PAA would. allow it; [2] the state law provides an individual with greater-rights of access .or amendment to his medical information than provided under HIPAA; [3] the state law provides an individual vvith a greater amount of information about a use, a disclosure,, rights and remedies; [4] [state law -provides requirements that narrow the scope or duration, increase the privacy protections afforded, or reduce the coercive effect of .the circumstances surrounding the express legal permission of an individual to disclose information]; [5] the state law provides for the retention or reporting of more detailed information or for a longer duration; or [6] the state law provides greater privacy protection for the individual who is the subject of the individually identifiable health information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.