961 F.3d 155
2d Cir.2020Background
- In October 2016 Ms. Ortiz (through counsel) requested her medical records from New York-Presbyterian; the records were provided by IOD (predecessor to Ciox) and billed at $1.50 per page.
- New York Public Health Law § 18(2)(e) permits providers to charge a "reasonable charge" for copies, capped at $0.75 per page.
- Ms. Ortiz paid the overcharge to obtain records for pending litigation, then sued in state court; Ciox later refunded the excess charge. The case was removed to federal court.
- The district court dismissed all claims except the § 18 claim, then later granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding § 18(2)(e) does not create a private cause of action for damages.
- Ortiz appealed; the Second Circuit concluded the question whether § 18(2)(e) creates a private right of action is an unsettled issue of New York law that will determine the appeal, and therefore reserved decision and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.Y. Pub. Health Law §18(2)(e) provides an implied private right of action for damages for overcharging for paper copies | Ortiz: §18 was enacted for patients' benefit and implies a private cause of action; damages are necessary relief | Ciox/NYPH: Legislature provided administrative/judicial remedies; statutory scheme and remedies indicate no private damages claim | Reserved and certified to the New York Court of Appeals for decision; Second Circuit did not decide the substance |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. T.D. Bank, N.A., 22 N.Y.3d 61 (2013) (standard for implying a private right of action from statute)
- Sheehy v. Big Flats Cmty. Day, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 629 (1989) (three-factor Sheehy test for implied private rights)
- Carrier v. Salvation Army, 88 N.Y.2d 298 (1996) (legislative intent requirement for private causes of action)
- Feder v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 711 N.Y.S.2d 719 (1st Dep't 2000) (Appellate Division one-sentence affirmance that has been read to allow a private right under §18)
- Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005) (unjust enrichment claim fails where plaintiff lacks private statutory cause of action)
- Simmons v. Trans Express Inc., 955 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2020) (factors for certifying questions to the New York Court of Appeals)