Matter of Junious v. Annucci

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employer’s need to access employee prescription records outweighed employee’s interest in keeping his prescription records confidential
• recognizing that plaintiff had strong privacy interest in prescription information under Westinghouse, but that on balance, the defendants' need for disclosure was significant enough to justify disclosure
• finding that medical records, “which may contain intimate facts of a personal nature, are well within the ambit of materials entitled to privacy protection” and are “precisely the sort intended to be protected by the penumbras of privacy.”
• balancing possible harms against an employer’s need to access prescription records for the limited purpose of monitoring health care expenditures
• \A § 1983 action cannot be maintained unless the underlying act violates a plaintiff's [c]onstitutional rights.\
• “[a]s with many individual rights, the right of privacy in one’s prescription drug records must be balanced against important competing interests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).