45 CFR 160.202 - Definitions

Cite as45 CFR 160.202
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
104 practice notes
  • Dinerstein v. Google, LLC, No. 19 C 4311
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • September 4, 2020
    ..., 673 F.3d at 577–78 (quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick , 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385 (1995) ); see also 45 C.F.R. § 160.202 (defining "contrary" to mean "(1) A covered entity or business associate would find it impossible to comply with both the State and Federal ......
  • Brown v. Mortensen, No. S180862.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 16, 2011
    ...law be preserved ( id., § 1320d–2 note (HIPAA, § 264(c)(2), Pub.L. No. 104–191, § 264(c)(2) (Aug. 21, 1996) 110 Stat.2033–2034); see 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.202, 160.203(b) (2010)). 10 As the Department [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 439] explained when announcing the Privacy Rule: “It is important to understan......
  • Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., No. 18904.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 11, 2014
    ...observing that, under the regulatory definitions implementing HIPAA's preemption provision; see 102 A.3d 3942 U.S.C. § 1320d–7 (a) ; 45 C.F.R. § 160.202 (2004) ;11 to “the extent that common-law negligence permits a private right of 314 Conn. 442action for claims that amount to HIPAA violat......
  • Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., SC 19873
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 16, 2018
    ...a contrary provision of law and subject to HIPAA's preemption rule. Because it is not more stringent, according to the definition of 45 C.F.R. § 160.202, the preemption exception does not apply.' For the same reasons, the trial court dismissed count four of the complaint, claiming negligent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
87 cases
  • Dinerstein v. Google, LLC, No. 19 C 4311
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • September 4, 2020
    ..., 673 F.3d at 577–78 (quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick , 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385 (1995) ); see also 45 C.F.R. § 160.202 (defining "contrary" to mean "(1) A covered entity or business associate would find it impossible to comply with both the Sta......
  • Brown v. Mortensen, No. S180862.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • June 16, 2011
    ...law be preserved ( id., § 1320d–2 note (HIPAA, § 264(c)(2), Pub.L. No. 104–191, § 264(c)(2) (Aug. 21, 1996) 110 Stat.2033–2034); see 45 C.F.R. §§ 160.202, 160.203(b) (2010)). 10 As the Department [126 Cal.Rptr.3d 439] explained when announcing the Privacy Rule: “It is important to understan......
  • Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., No. 18904.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 11, 2014
    ...observing that, under the regulatory definitions implementing HIPAA's preemption provision; see 102 A.3d 3942 U.S.C. § 1320d–7 (a) ; 45 C.F.R. § 160.202 (2004) ;11 to “the extent that common-law negligence permits a private right of 314 Conn. 442action for claims that amount to HIPAA violat......
  • Byrne v. Avery Ctr. for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., SC 19873
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • January 16, 2018
    ...a contrary provision of law and subject to HIPAA's preemption rule. Because it is not more stringent, according to the definition of 45 C.F.R. § 160.202, the preemption exception does not apply.' For the same reasons, the trial court dismissed count four of the complaint, claiming negligent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • HIPAA Does Not Preempt State Litigation Practice
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • February 15, 2007
    ...or that would stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of [the Act].” 45 C.F.R. §160.202.Unless prohibited by statute, administrative agencies may delineate the preemptive scope of the statutes they administer. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 51......
  • Georgia Supreme Court takes another chip off SB 3
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • May 15, 2007
    ...provision of [s]tate law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of [HIPAA].” 45 CFR § 160.202. Thus, the starting point for analysis herein should be whether it is possible to comply with OCGA § 9-11-9.2 while at the same time complying......
  • A New Year’s Resolution: Review and Analyze Potentially Applicable State Laws Whenever Examining HIPAA Compliance Issues
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • January 1, 2012
    ...reason, Section 400.145 “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of [HIPPA].” 45 C.F.R. § 160.202. The Opis Order serves as a case in point of the need to analyze state law whenever considering compliance issues involving HIPAA. However,......
  • Responding To Subpoena For Medical Records May Create Liability For Healthcare Providers Under State Law Negligence Claims
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 15, 2014
    ...not preempt state law provisions that provide "greater privacy protection for the individual" whose information is being disclosed. 45 C.F.R. § 160.202. The court concluded that this standard protected the patient's common law negligence claims because (i) a common law negligence claim may ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
1 provisions
  • HB 166 – Creates FY 2020-2021 operating budget
    • United States
    • Ohio Session Laws
    • January 1, 2019
    ...in rules adopted by the medicaid director under section 3798.13 of the Revised Code. (K)(J) "More stringent" has the same meaning as in 45 C.F.R. 160.202. (L) "Office of health transformation" means the office of health transformation created by executive order 2011-02K or a successor gover......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT