Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC
386 F. Supp. 3d 308
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- In Oct. 2016 Vicky Ortiz (through counsel) requested copies of her medical records from NYPH; statute § 18(2)(e) caps paper-copy fees at $0.75/page. A contractor (predecessor to CIOX) charged $1.50/page; Ortiz paid and later filed suit; CIOX later refunded the excess to Ortiz's credit card.
- Ortiz died during the litigation; Hector Ortiz was substituted as temporary administrator of her estate and continued the action as class representative.
- The First Amended Complaint asserted violations of N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 18(2)(e) (overcharging for copies) seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing lack of standing for damages and injunctive relief, mootness (refund), absence of an express or implied private right of action under § 18(2)(e), and class overbreadth.
- The court previously rejected standing and mootness arguments in part (Feb. 22, 2018 Opinion) and here again found plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief as estate administrator, but concluded § 18(2)(e) does not imply a private right of action.
- The court dismissed the action because New York’s Public Health Law provides its own enforcement mechanisms (Article 78 and Commissioner enforcement), and § 18(2)(e) is a standards provision (not a remedies clause) that lacks legislative intent to create private damages suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has Article III standing to seek injunctive relief after decedent's death | Estate (Ortiz) can still need records to administer estate; as temporary administrator he has standing | Ortiz’s death defeats future injury; refund moots claims | Held: Ortiz (as estate administrator) plausibly has standing for injunctive relief |
| Whether § 18(2)(e) implies a private right of action for overcharges | § 18(2)(e)’s mandatory cap creates enforceable individual rights and courts can calculate overcharges; prior cases assumed private remedy | § 18(2)(e) is a standards provision, not a remedies clause; Legislature provided enforcement (Article 78, Commissioner) so no implied private damages action | Held: No private right of action implied under § 18(2)(e); dismissal granted |
| Whether recognition of private suits would further legislative purpose of limiting costs | Private suits would vindicate consumers and deter overcharging | Private suits would increase costs and undermine Legislature’s cost-control choices | Held: Recognition of private suits is at odds with legislative scheme and may frustrate cost-control purpose |
| Whether legislative scheme and remedial text permit implying damages remedies | Mandatory language sometimes implies private actions (citing cases) | § 18 contains express, narrower remedies and immunities; remedies elsewhere (e.g., § 19) show Legislature knows how to provide refunds when intended | Held: Because Legislature provided administrative and Article 78 remedies and limited incidental damages, implying a private damages remedy is inconsistent with the scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 894 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018) (standing requirements overview)
- Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim and relief sought)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (past injuries do not alone confer standing for injunctive relief)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (named plaintiffs must personally allege injury)
- Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A., 22 N.Y.3d 61 (N.Y. 2013) (three-factor test for implying private rights under NY law)
- Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 1983) (courts decide legislative intent re: private rights)
- Sheehy v. Big Flats Cmty. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629 (N.Y. 1989) (declining private action inconsistent with legislative enforcement scheme)
- McLean v. City of New York, 12 N.Y.3d 194 (N.Y. 2009) (Legislature’s choice of enforcement mechanisms is entitled to deference)
- Schlessinger v. Valspar Corp., 686 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (express statutory enforcement by agency forecloses implied private action)
- Maimonides Med. Ctr. v. First United American Life Ins. Co., 116 A.D.3d 207 (App. Div. 2014) (private right found where statute’s remedies clause expressly mandated payment)