SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Court turns down dispute over access to health records

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear a dispute between West Virginia health officials and a patient advocacy group over access to medical records.

The justices on Tuesday let stand a state court ruling that said federal laws protecting health record privacy don't prevent Legal Aid of West Virginia from reviewing patient files at the state's two psychiatric hospitals.

For more than two decades the legal aid group has helped psychiatric patients file grievances over alleged abuse and neglect. State law allows access to patient files without written consent.

But state officials began restricting the group's access to patient files in 2014, saying it violates federal privacy laws.

A state circuit court sided with the patient advocates. The state supreme court agreed.

State officials argued that federal law trumps state law.


Tobacco firms' appeal over state payments rejected

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't hear appeals from tobacco companies that wanted to reduce payments owed to Maryland and Pennsylvania.

After a federal arbitration panel in 2013 cut the annual payments by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA, and others, state courts ruled that was wrong. The justices are leaving those rulings in place. The payments reimburse the states for smoking-related health costs.

A nationwide settlement in 1998 allowed tobacco companies to seek a reduction if they lost market share to competitors not participating in the agreement. States could avoid the reduction if they diligently enforced laws against non-participating companies.


Justices won't hear dispute over AZ judicial candidates

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court won't take up a dispute over Arizona rules that prohibit some candidates for elected judgeships from soliciting campaign contributions or participating in somebody else's campaign.

The justices on Tuesday left in place a lower court ruling that rejected a constitutional challenge to parts of Arizona's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Arizona lawyer Randolph Wolfson challenged the rules after twice running unsuccessfully for a judgeship in Mohave County. He argued that the rules infringe on candidates' free-speech rights and were too broad to serve the state's interest in having an impartial judiciary.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the rules.

Published: Thu, Oct 13, 2016