New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

McFADDEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-016-023, Claim No. 102127, Motion No. M-68199


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-016-023
Claimant(s):
REGINALD McFADDEN
Claimant short name:
McFADDEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102127
Motion number(s):
M-68199
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Reginald McFadden
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Joseph F. Romani, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 11, 2004
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, Reginald McFadden alleges improper medical treatment for tuberculosis at various correctional facilities. This is defendant's motion "for an order directing the New York State Department of Correctional Services Medical Unit at Clinton Correctional Facility to release to defendant the claimant's medical records so a response can be framed to the claimant's pending motion seeking summary judgment, or in the alternative, dismissal of the claim . . ." See defendant's notice of motion. Defendant states that this motion is necessary because claimant has refused "to sign and have notarized a valid, up to date [HIPAA] . . . compliant waiver of confidentiality

. . ." See ¶3 of the March 16, 2004 affirmation of Joseph F. Romani.

On February 6, 2004, defendant sent claimant a blank HIPAA authorization form with a request that it be signed and notarized. Claimant initially made certain changes or deletions to the form, but ultimately signed such authorization in its original form. See exhibit G to defendant's moving papers. Defendant complains that such authorization is not notarized. The regulations surrounding HIPAA do not require that an authorization thereunder be notarized. See 45 CFR §164.508(b). Moreover, in claimant's May 5, 2004 letter (sent after the making of defendant's motion), claimant states that he has now sent counsel for defendant a signed and notarized authorization.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-68199 be denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order, defendant shall submit claimant's authorization to the Department of Correctional Services and take the steps necessary to obtain claimant's medical records. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of receipt of such records, defendant shall advise the Court of such receipt so that a new return date may be scheduled for claimant's pending motion for summary judgment (motion no. M-67888).


May 11, 2004
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims





  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-G; and claimant's letters dated March 22, 2004 and May 5, 2004.