Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC ( 2021 )

19-1649-cv
Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term 2019
(Argued: March 9, 2020 Decided: December 16, 2021)
Docket No. 19-1649-cv
HECTOR ORTIZ, in his capacity as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of
Vicky Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CIOX HEALTH LLC, successor in interest to IOD INC.,
and THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL,
Defendants-Appellees,
IOD INC. and COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Before:
CHIN, SULLIVAN, and NARDINI, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Cote, J.) dismissing plaintiff-appellant's claims
for damages for violation 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. On June 5, 2020, we certified a question to the New York Court of
Appeals: 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? Because the Court of
Appeals responded that no private right of action lies for violations of section
18(2)(e), we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
SUE J. NAM (Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade,
on the brief), Reese LLP, New York, New York, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.
-2-
JOHN HOUSTON POPE, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.,
New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee The
New York and Presbyterian Hospital.
JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York,
New York (Jodyann Galvin, Hodgson Russ LLP,
Buffalo, New York, on the brief), for Defendant-
Appellee Ciox Health LLC
___________
PER CURIAM:
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
-3-
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(2020), and has answered the question in the negative, Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC,
No. 26, 2021 WL 5407394 (N.Y. Nov. 18, 2021). With the benefit of the Court of
Appeals's decision, we now consider the district court's 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, 2021 WL 5407394, at *5. Ortiz's 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
-4-
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.
-5-