ORTIZ v. IOD (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.2021-12-16No. Docket No. 19-1649-cv

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the district court is affirmed because New York Public Health Law section 18(2)(e) does not provide a private right of action for damages when a medical provider charges more than the statutory seventy-five cent per page maximum for medical record copies.

Hector Ortiz, as administrator of his late wife's estate, appealed a dismissal of her lawsuit against a hospital and medical records contractor for overcharging on copies of medical records. New York Public Health Law limits providers to charging seventy-five cents per page, but the defendants charged one dollar and fifty cents per page. Although the defendants later refunded the overcharge, Ortiz pursued damages and an unjust enrichment claim.

The Second Circuit certified the case to New York's highest court to determine whether the statute creates a private right of action for damages. The New York Court of Appeals answered no—the statute does not permit private parties to sue for violations. Because no private right of action exists under the statute, Ortiz's related unjust enrichment claim also failed, as allowing it would circumvent the legislature's decision to preclude private lawsuits. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Public Health Law § 18(2)(e) creates a private right of action for statutory violations
Whether an unjust enrichment claim can proceed when the underlying statute precludes private lawsuits
Validity of overcharges for medical records copies

Procedural posture

After the district court dismissed the complaint, the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered that no private right of action exists, leading to affirmance of the dismissal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Plaintiff-appellant Hector Ortiz (“Ortiz”), as temporary administrator of the estate of Vicky Ortiz (“Ms. Ortiz”), sues defendants-appellees The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (the “Hospital”) and Ciox Health LLC (“Ciox”) for damages for purported violations of section 18(2)(e) of the New York Public Health Law, which provides that health care providers may impose only a “reasonable charge,” not to exceed “seventy-five cents per page,” for copies of medical records. Ms. Ortiz requested copies of her medical records from the Hospital, and its contractor, a predecessor in interest to Ciox, charged her $1.50 per page for the copies. Ms. Ortiz paid the bill and filed suit. Thereafter, Ciox refunded Ms. Ortiz the amount charged above the $0.75 per page statutory maximum. Ms. Ortiz passed away, and the district court substituted Ortiz as the party plaintiff. We assume the parties familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings.

On June 5, 2020, we certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals pursuant to Second Circuit Local Rule 27.2 and title 22, section 500.27 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations: Does section 18(2)(e) provide a private right of action for damages when a medical provider violates the provision limiting the reasonable charge for paper copies of medical records to $0.75 per page? See Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC, 961 F.3d 155, 160 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court of Appeals accepted certification, Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC, 35 N.Y.3d 1001, 149 N.E.3d 432 (2020), and has answered the question in the negative, Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, No. 26, 2021 WL 5407394 (N.Y. Nov. 18, 2021). With the benefit of the Court of Appealss decision, we now consider the district courts dismissal.

In its opinion dated November 18, 2021, the Court of Appeals held that “no private right of action lies for violations of Public Health Law § 18(2)(e).” Ortiz, ––– N.Y.3d at ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2021 WL 5407394, at *5. Ortizs claim for damages under the statute therefore fails. The other claim he raised below, unjust enrichment, also fails because under New York law “[w]hen a plaintiff does not possess a private right of action under a particular statute, and does not allege any actionable wrongs independent of the requirements of the statute, a claim for unjust enrichment is properly dismissed as an effort to circumvent the legislative preclusion of private lawsuits for violation of the statute.” Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 203 (2d Cir. 2005) (cleaned up).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Per Curiam