As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2025, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

The New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) received one public comment regarding proposed changes to the definition of the terms “Case record, clinical record, medical record, or patient record” as set forth in 14 NYCRR 501.2(a).

The purpose of the proposal is to clarify that OMH does not interpret the definition set forth in 14 NYCRR 501.2(a) to apply to or otherwise expand on the term “record” as defined in MHL § 9.01. In short, the proposed change is meant to clarify that the definition in 14 NYCRR 501.2(a) is separate from the statutory definition of “record” as set forth in MHL § 9.01.

The commenter expressed concern that the amendment is an overreach of authority. OMH believes that its proposed regulatory clarification is a valid exercise of authority. Pursuant to MHL 7.09 the Commissioner has the statutory authority to issue regulations that are “necessary and proper to implement any matters under the commissioner’s jurisdiction.“ This regulatory amendment is necessary to clarify and implement existing case law to avoid administrative confusion, while balancing the rights of our patients to have a prompt retention hearing. The proposed amendment does not in any manner restrict MHLS’s current authority to have access to, including the ability to copy, their clients’ full clinical record, nor does it limit the introduction of the entire original record introduced into evidence at MHL § 9.31 hearings, the practice of which was noted by the Court of Appeals in MHLS v. Daniels, 33 N.Y.3d 44 (2019).