Nursing Home Camera Laws by State
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 14, 2026). · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Families install a camera in a loved one's nursing home or assisted living room for one reason above all others: to see what happens when nobody else is watching. Understaffed shifts, missed call-button responses, rough handling during transfers, and outright abuse are hard to prove after the fact, and a family that cannot be in the room around the clock has historically had almost no way to know what actually happened between visits.
Information last verified on 2026-08-14. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
This hub covers all 51 U.S. jurisdictions, organized by legal regime rather than a simple yes-or-no list, since "does my state have a law" turns out to have six different real answers. For a compact 18-jurisdiction comparison focused on the states with an enacted statute, see Nursing Home Camera Laws by State; this page is the full reference and links to a dedicated page for every state and the District of Columbia.
What Nursing Home Cameras Are, and Why Families Install Them
A nursing home or "granny cam" is a resident-owned or family-owned camera, sometimes with a microphone, placed in a resident's own room, most often a small Wi-Fi or battery-powered unit rather than a professional security system. It is legally and practically distinct from a facility's own security cameras in hallways or common areas, which the facility owns and controls.
The evidence reality driving demand is documented, not speculative. Understaffing, turnover, and inconsistent supervision are recurring findings in state and federal nursing home oversight, and a family that cannot be present around the clock has no other reliable way to know what happens in a loved one's room. When a camera does capture abuse or neglect, that footage can support a formal complaint to the state licensing agency, a Long-Term Care Ombudsman investigation, or a civil claim. See Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect for how a claim works once footage or other evidence exists.
Camera laws in this space did not appear in the abstract. Nearly every enacted statute traces to a specific case: Ohio's Esther's Law is named for Esther Piskor, whose son's hidden camera documented years of abuse; Nevada's Henry's Law follows a similar pattern. The statutes exist because a family found out the hard way that they had no legal footing to watch, and then had no legal footing to prove what the camera showed.
Six Regimes, Not One Rule
"Does my state allow nursing home cameras" does not have a single answer, because states have taken six structurally different approaches. Which one your state falls into changes what rights you actually have, not just how strong the law reads.

Statute (17 states). Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming have each passed a law creating a resident's right to request electronic monitoring, typically with roommate consent, notice, and cost-allocation rules spelled out. These are the strongest position for a family: a defined legal right, not just a facility's permission.
Regulation (2 states). Washington and Oregon reach the same substantive right through administrative rule rather than a bill the legislature passed. Washington's WAC provisions cover nursing homes, assisted living, and adult family homes. Oregon's rule is temporary, effective August 10, 2026 through February 5, 2027, and covers residential care and assisted living only, not skilled nursing; confirm it is still in force, or has been replaced with a permanent rule, before relying on it after that date.
Guidance only (2 states). Maryland and Wisconsin have agency guidance describing how monitoring should work, but neither creates an enforceable legal right. Maryland's guidelines apply only if a facility voluntarily chooses to allow monitoring in the first place, and Wisconsin's guidance is interpretive, built on a general privacy statute rather than a dedicated camera law.
Program, not a right (1 state). New Jersey's Attorney General runs Safe Care Cam, a voluntary camera-loan program covering nursing homes and assisted living. It is genuinely useful, but it is a state service, not a statutory right a resident can invoke on demand, and the legislature has repeatedly failed to enact one.
Split (1 state). California has no enacted statute for either facility type. Assisted living cameras exist through a Department of Social Services waiver-and-guidance process that bans audio outright, while skilled nursing facilities have no camera-specific policy or guidance of any kind, a real, documented gap between the two facility types within the same state.
Bill pending or failed, and no specific law found (28 states). Fourteen states have a real bill on record, either currently pending or died in a recent session, and 14 more states have no camera-specific statute, regulation, guidance, or recent bill activity of any kind after a documented search. In both groups, current law is whatever the facility's admission agreement and the state's general recording-consent law say, covered in more detail below and, state by state, in each linked page.
Nursing Home Camera Laws by State
The table below covers all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Status reflects the regime categories above; Key Law or Instrument names the controlling statute, rule, or bill; Assisted Living Covered answers whether the same right reaches an assisted living resident, which is often the single most consequential detail on a given state's page; and Audio Allowed covers whether the camera's microphone is permitted, restricted, or banned, or, where no camera-specific law exists, the state's general recording-consent baseline that governs a camera's audio component by default.
| State | Status | Key Law or Instrument | Assisted Living Covered? | Audio Allowed? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Alaska | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Arizona | Reporting law only | A.R.S. § 36-420.06 (SB1564, 2026); HB2914 right-to-monitor bill died | No right (disclosure only) | One-party (general) |
| Arkansas | Bill pending/failed | SB616 died 2025 | n/a | One-party (general) |
| California | Split (RCFE guidance, SNF gap) | CDSS RCFE waiver guidance (2015); no SNF provision | Yes, via waiver (RCFE only) | Banned in RCFE |
| Colorado | No specific law | None enacted (AL transparency rule only) | Disclosure rule only | One-party (general) |
| Connecticut | Statute | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-550b | No (nursing homes only) | Yes (device covers audio) |
| Delaware | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | Nuanced (one-party text + all-party private-place statute) |
| District of Columbia | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Florida | Bill pending/failed | HB 651 died 2026 (SB 64/HB 223 died 2025) | n/a | All-party (general), felony risk |
| Georgia | Bill pending/failed (historical) | HB 605 died 2021 (passed both chambers, amended); none pending 2025-2026 | n/a | Nuanced (one-party calls, all-party private-place video) |
| Hawaii | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party + all-party private-place risk |
| Idaho | Bill pending/failed | HB 287 died 2025 | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Illinois | Statute | 210 ILCS 32 | Not until 2027-01-01 (P.A. 104-0494) | Yes (roommate can restrict/ban) |
| Indiana | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Iowa | Bill pending/failed | SSB 3080 pulled 2026 (6th straight rejection) | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Kansas | Statute | K.S.A. § 39-981 | Yes ("adult care home" includes AL) | Yes (separately electable) |
| Kentucky | Bill pending/failed | HB 491 died 2026 | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Louisiana | Statute | La. R.S. 40:1193.1-1193.11 | No (nursing homes only) | Yes (optional, not required) |
| Maine | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party + all-party private-place risk |
| Maryland | Guidance only | 2003 MDH guidelines (Vera's Law, HB 149) | Not addressed | Banned by guidance |
| Massachusetts | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | All-party (general), felony risk |
| Michigan | Bill pending/failed | SB 412 pending 2025 (SB 77 pocket-vetoed 2021) | n/a | Nuanced (one-party participant; all-party audio eavesdropping + video private-place felony) |
| Minnesota | Statute | Minn. Stat. §§ 144.6501-144.6512 | Yes (since 2021) | Yes |
| Mississippi | Bill pending/failed | SB 2713 died 2022, no revival | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Missouri | Statute | RSMo §§ 198.610-198.632 | Yes (broad facility definition) | Yes (roommate can limit) |
| Montana | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | Announcement-based (unique regime) |
| Nebraska | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Nevada | Statute | NRS 449A.180-449A.188 (Henry's Law); AB368 (2025) expansion | Expanded 2025 beyond skilled nursing | Yes (waiver/release model) |
| New Hampshire | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | All-party (general), Class B felony |
| New Jersey | AG program | Safe Care Cam (loan program); A805 pending | Program covers AL as loan, not a right | One-party (general) |
| New Mexico | Statute | NMSA 1978 §§ 24-26-1 to 24-26-12 | Functional (via other licensing categories) | Yes |
| New York | Bill pending/failed | S7190/A1967B and S3374 pending | n/a | One-party (general); bills would add audio consent layer |
| North Carolina | Bill pending/failed | HB 591 (G.U.A.R.D. Act) stalled | n/a | One-party (general) |
| North Dakota | Statute | N.D. Cent. Code ch. 50-10.2 | Yes | Yes (audio-only/video-only customizable) |
| Ohio | Statute | R.C. §§ 3721.60-3721.68 (Esther's Law) | No today; SB 154/HB 809 pending would add assisted living | General one-party overlay |
| Oklahoma | Statute | 63 O.S. §§ 1-1956.1 to 1-1956.7 | Yes (assisted living center named) | Yes (roommate can limit/prohibit) |
| Oregon | Regulation (temporary) | OAR 411-054-0025(10), expires 2027-02-05 | Yes (AL/residential care only, not SNF) | Not addressed by rule; all-party in-person overlay |
| Pennsylvania | Bill pending/failed | HB 1350 (Esther's Law) pending | n/a | All-party (general), felony risk |
| Rhode Island | Statute | R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 23-17.29 | Yes | Yes (one consent process covers both) |
| South Carolina | Bill pending/failed | H.4646, H.4524, H.3634 pending | n/a | One-party (general) |
| South Dakota | Statute | S.D.C.L. ch. 34-12I | Yes (by title) | Banned (class 1 misdemeanor) |
| Tennessee | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Texas | Statute | Health & Safety Code ch. 242, subch. R | Partial (right extends, enforcement/tampering does not) | Yes |
| Utah | Statute | Utah Code § 26B-2-236 | Yes, plus secure memory-care units (not general nursing rooms) | Yes |
| Vermont | No specific law | None enacted | n/a | No general wiretap statute; federal ECPA baseline |
| Virginia | Statute | Va. Code § 32.1-138.5:1 | Enacted (2026 SB 409) but not yet operative | Barred once roommate present |
| Washington | Regulation | WAC 388-97-0400 / 388-78A-2690 / 388-76-10725 | Yes | Requires separate all-party consent |
| West Virginia | Bill pending/failed | GRAM'S Act (HB 3283/HB 5610) stalled | n/a | One-party (general) |
| Wisconsin | Guidance only | DHS guidance (Wis. Stat. § 50.09 + DHS 83.32(3)/88.10(3)) | Yes (AFH/CBRF/RCAC settings) | General one-party overlay |
| Wyoming | Statute | Wyo. Stat. §§ 35-2-1301 to 35-2-1308 | Yes | Yes (general wiretap rules still apply to others) |
The Federal Layer: What Applies Everywhere
No federal statute or regulation authorizes or forbids a family from installing a camera in a nursing home resident's room. That silence is real and confirmed, not simply unresearched. 42 CFR 483.10, the federal Resident Rights regulation, and its statutory basis in the Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395i-3 for Medicare-certified skilled nursing facilities and 42 U.S.C. 1396r for Medicaid-certified nursing facilities, guarantee a resident's general privacy, dignity, and self-determination rights, but neither one mentions cameras, electronic monitoring, or recording technology anywhere in the text. In a state with no camera-specific statute, that means the facility's own admission-agreement policy fills the entire gap; there is no federal backstop pointing either direction.
HIPAA does not restrict a family's own camera either, though facilities sometimes cite it as if it did. 45 CFR 160.103 limits HIPAA's "covered entity" definition to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that transmit health information electronically. A resident's family member installing their own device does not fall into any of those three categories, so HIPAA's restrictions on covered entities do not reach them. A facility can still restrict cameras through its own admission-agreement terms, but that is a contract question, not a HIPAA requirement.
The real federal exposure sits in the audio, not the video. Silent video recording falls outside the Wiretap Act entirely, because the statute governs "wire, oral, or electronic communications," not images. But 18 U.S.C. 2511 bars intentionally intercepting an oral communication, with a one-party consent exception for a person who is themselves a party to the conversation, or where one participant consented in advance. A camera's microphone that captures two staff members talking to each other, or a roommate speaking with their own visitor, where no participant consented, sits outside that exception and can raise real exposure, especially in a state that layers its own all-party consent law on top of the federal baseline. That is why every state page in this cluster treats the camera and the microphone as two separate legal questions and links back to that state's own recording-law page for the general rule.
The one channel every resident has, regardless of the state's camera-law status, is the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program, required in every state under 42 U.S.C. 3058g and administered through the federal Administration for Community Living. Ombudsman offices identify, investigate, and resolve complaints affecting a resident's health, safety, welfare, or rights, and the program explicitly covers assisted living residents too, not just certified nursing facility residents. It is the right first call for a camera dispute, a facility retaliation concern, or a suspected abuse report, whether or not the state has a camera statute at all.
How to Check Your State Fast
- Find your state in the table above and note its Status column.
- If it says Statute or Regulation, click through to that state's page for the exact consent, notice, cost, and penalty rules, and confirm whether assisted living is covered before assuming it is.
- If it says Guidance only or a program, read that state's page carefully; neither creates an enforceable right the way a statute does, and the practical process is different.
- If it says Bill pending/failed or No specific law, treat the current law as the facility's own policy plus the state's general recording-consent statute, both covered on that state's page along with the state's Ombudsman contact information.
- In every case, check the Audio Allowed column separately from the camera question itself; a state that allows video freely can still restrict or ban audio.

What to Do in a State With No Camera-Specific Law
Twenty-eight states have no enacted right to install a nursing home camera, either because a bill has failed (14 states) or because a real search found no statute, regulation, or recent bill activity at all (14 states). That does not mean nothing applies.
Start with the facility's own admission agreement. Some facilities permit cameras as a matter of policy, some prohibit them, and some are silent, in which case a direct written request is worth making before installing anything. A facility cannot cite HIPAA as a blanket justification for refusing, for the reasons covered above, though it can rely on its own contract terms.
Check your state's general recording-consent law next, since that governs any audio the camera captures. Most states are one-party consent, meaning a resident who is personally part of a conversation can generally record it, but a handful, including Florida, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, require every participant's consent, which raises real exposure for an unattended device capturing staff or a roommate's conversations. Each state's page in this cluster covers its specific rule and links to the full recording-law explainer for that state.
Contact the state's Long-Term Care Ombudsman program before or alongside installing a device. It is free, covers assisted living as well as nursing homes, and is the right channel for a policy dispute, a retaliation concern, or a suspected abuse report, independent of whether a camera law exists.
Hidden Camera Risks
A hidden or covert camera, installed without the facility's knowledge, carries risk beyond the legal question of whether recording itself is permitted. Discovery of an undisclosed device can lead a facility to treat it as an admission-agreement violation, which in a state with no anti-retaliation statute specific to cameras carries real practical exposure, including discharge or a strained relationship with staff during a vulnerable time. In a state with an enacted statute, most of them explicitly bar retaliation or discharge over a monitoring request, but that protection generally applies to authorized, disclosed monitoring conducted through the statute's own process, not to a covert device installed outside it.

A covert audio-capable device carries an additional layer of exposure under the state's general wiretap or eavesdropping law if it captures a conversation no participant consented to, on top of any facility-relationship risk. This is a caveat worth taking seriously rather than a formality: a family weighing a hidden camera in a no-statute state, or in a shared room where a roommate has not consented, should read the specific state's page for the applicable consent rule before installing anything, and should strongly consider an open, disclosed device instead where the law allows it.
Monitoring and Abuse Reporting
Camera footage that appears to show abuse, neglect, or exploitation does not resolve a case on its own, but it is often the difference between a suspicion and a documented complaint. Most states require certain professionals, and some states require any person, to report suspected abuse or neglect to a state agency or the Long-Term Care Ombudsman; several of the enacted camera statutes tie directly into that duty, for example by setting a deadline for a resident's representative to review footage after it is recorded.
Once a report is made, footage that shows a date and time stamp and has not been edited or enhanced carries the most weight, and several statutes, including Texas, Rhode Island, and South Dakota, build that standard directly into their own evidence-admissibility clause. Footage obtained covertly can still support a complaint or a civil claim in most states, though the specific evidentiary rules vary and are covered on each state's own page. If footage suggests abuse or neglect happened, Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect covers how a claim works from that point.
Related Resources
- Nursing Home Camera Laws by State is the compact 18-jurisdiction comparison and covers why New Jersey and Arizona are commonly, and incorrectly, listed as granny-cam states.
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect covers how an abuse or neglect claim works once camera footage or other evidence exists.
- United States Recording Laws covers the general one-party and all-party consent framework every state camera page links back to for its audio-consent overlay.
- Nanny Cam Laws covers a related but legally distinct scenario, recording a caregiver inside a private home rather than a licensed facility.

Last updated: 2026-08-14.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to put a camera in my mom's nursing home room?
It depends entirely on the state. In the 17 states with an enacted camera statute (plus Washington and Oregon by regulation), a resident or their legal representative has a defined right to request one, subject to consent and notice rules. In the other jurisdictions, there is no specific right, and whether a camera is allowed is a facility policy question decided in the admission agreement. Use the table above to check your state, then read that state's page for the exact mechanics.
Can a nursing home refuse to let me install a camera?
In a state with an enacted right-to-monitor statute, no, a facility generally cannot refuse a compliant request, and most of these laws bar the facility from denying admission or removing a resident over a monitoring request. In a state with no specific law, a facility's own policy controls, and it can lawfully prohibit a personal camera through the admission agreement.
Do I need my mom's roommate's permission to install a camera?
In every state with an enacted camera statute, yes, a roommate's written consent is required before monitoring can begin, and a roommate can typically condition that consent, for example by requiring the camera point away from them or by limiting or prohibiting audio. In a no-statute state, there is no roommate-consent statute specific to cameras, but recording a roommate's private conversation without their consent can still raise exposure under the state's general wiretap or eavesdropping law.
Is audio recording legal with a nursing home camera?
It varies by state and is a separate legal question from the camera itself. Some statutes allow audio with roommate consent (Texas, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas), some criminally ban audio monitoring outright (South Dakota), some guidance documents bar it (Maryland, California's assisted-living guidance), and some statutes require video-only once a roommate is present (Virginia). In every state, a camera's microphone also has to satisfy the state's general one-party or all-party recording-consent law for any conversation it captures outside the camera statute's own process.
What if there's no nursing home camera law in my state?
You still have options. A federal camera right does not exist anywhere, so in a no-statute state the facility's own policy controls whether a camera is allowed, the state's general recording-consent law governs any audio it captures, and the state and federal Long-Term Care Ombudsman program remains available for a complaint regardless of whether a camera statute exists. Installing a hidden camera without the facility's knowledge carries practical risk on top of the legal question, including possible admission-agreement violations, so read the no-statute framing on your specific state's page before doing that.
Can nursing home camera footage be used as evidence of abuse?
Often yes, subject to the specific state's evidence rules, and several statutes (Texas, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and others) contain their own admissibility clause requiring a date-and-time stamp and unedited, unenhanced footage. Even in a no-statute state, camera footage can support a complaint to the state's licensing agency or the Long-Term Care Ombudsman, and can support a civil claim if it documents abuse or neglect.
Does a nursing home camera law cover assisted living too?
Sometimes, and this is one of the most misread parts of the topic. A law that reads as universal can still exclude assisted living entirely (Ohio's Esther's Law, Louisiana, Connecticut), while others cover it fully (Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island) or on a delay (Illinois, not until 2027). Check the Assisted Living Covered column in the table above, then confirm the detail on your state's own page, since a single word in a statute's facility definition can change the answer.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 39: DEPENDENT PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES; SOCIAL WELFARE
§ 39-981Authorized electronic monitoring; reasonable accommodations; notice; consent; use as evidence; prohibitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) "Adult care home" means the same as defined in K.S.A. 39-923, and amendments thereto; (2) "authorized electronic monitoring" means the placement of one or more electronic monitoring devices in the room of an adult care home resident and making recordings with such devices after notifying the adult care home of the resident's intent to conduct electronic monitoring; (3) "electronic monitoring device" means a surveillance instrument used to broadcast or record activity or sound occurring in a room, including a video surveillance camera or an audio device designed to acquire communications or other sounds occurring in the room, but not to intercept wire or electronic communications; and (4) "resident's room" means a room in an adult care home that is used as a resident's private living quarters. (b) A resident shall be permitted to conduct authorized electronic monitoring in the resident's room subject to the requirements of this section. (c) An adult care home shall not discharge or refuse to admit a resident or person or otherwise retaliate against a resident or person based on conducting or consenting to authorized electronic monitoring.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Code of Virginia, Title 32.1: Health
§ 32.1-138.5:1(Effective pursuant to Acts 2025, c. 432, cl. 2) Electronic monitoring in resident roomsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. As used in this section: "Electronic monitoring" means the use of a surveillance device with a fixed position video camera or audio recording device, or a combination thereof, that is installed in a resident's room and broadcasts or records activities or sounds occurring within the confines of the room. Electronic monitoring shall not include use of a device that enables audio communication into the resident's room from another source. "Family member" means the resident's spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, grandparent, or grandchild. "Legal representative" means a person legally responsible for representing or standing in the place of the resident for the conduct of his affairs. This may include a guardian, conservator, attorney-in-fact under durable power of attorney, trustee, or other person expressly named by a court of competent jurisdiction or the resident as his agency in a legal document that specifies the scope of the representative's authority to act. A legal representative may only represent or stand in the place of a resident for the function for which he has legal authority to act. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Code of Federal Regulations Title 42
§ 483.10Resident rights.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(a) Residents rights. The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility, including those specified in this section. (1) A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident. (2) The facility must provide equal access to quality care regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition, or payment source. A facility must establish and maintain identical policies and practices regarding transfer, discharge, and the provision of services under the State plan for all residents regardless of payment source. (b) Exercise of rights. The resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 85 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts reviewing CMS penalties have applied the notice duty then codified at section 483.10(b)(11). Claiborne-Hughes Health Center v. Sebelius (2010) upheld noncompliance where a facility did not promptly consult the physician or notify family after a resident's decline; Senior Rehabilitation (2010) sustained a similar finding.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roudachevski v. All-American Care Centers, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2011, 648 F.3d 701)✓A doctor cut off from his nursing home patients sought an injunction, arguing residents' right under Section 483.10(d)(1) to choose a physician made the public interest favor him; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial, finding that interest not presently ascertainable.
- CLAIBORNE-HUGHES HEALTH CENTER v. Sebelius (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 609 F.3d 839)✓A resident's food intake fell sharply for three weeks and he lost 18.5 pounds before the nursing home called his doctor or family; the Sixth Circuit upheld findings that it violated Section 483.10(b)(11)'s immediate-notification duty and that the lapse was immediate jeopardy.
- Gray Panthers Advocacy Committee v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1991, 936 F.2d 1284)“…how to apply for and use Medicare and Medicaid benefits.” 42 C.F.R. § 483.10 (b)(9) (1990). On the topic of property…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45
§ 160.103Definitions.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided, the following definitions apply to this subchapter: Act means the Social Security Act. Administrative simplification provision means any requirement or prohibition established by: (1) 42 U.S.C. 1320d-1320d-4, 1320d-7, 1320d-8, and 1320d-9; (2) Section 264 of Pub. L. 104-191; (3) Sections 13400-13424 of Public Law 111-5; or (4) This subchapter. ALJ means Administrative Law Judge. ANSI stands for the American National Standards Institute. Business associate: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this definition, business associate means, with respect to a covered entity, a person who: (i) On behalf of such covered entity or of an organized health care arrangement (as defined in this section) in which the covered entity participates, but other than in the capacity of a member of the workforce of such covered entity or arrangement, creates, receives, maintains, or transmits protected health information for a function or activity regulated by this subchapter, including claims processing or administration, data analysis, processing or administration, utilization review, quality assurance, patient safety activities listed at 42 CFR 3.20, billing,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 374 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts apply the Section 160.103 definitions inside and outside HIPAA. Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp. (2017) used its health care definition to hold pharmacy flu shot calls fell within the TCPA health care exemption. Kenneth Wilson v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co (2022) applied its individually identifiable health information test.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Northwestern Memorial Hospital v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2004, 362 F.3d 923)“…mation” as “individually identifiable health information.” 45 C.F.R. § 160.103 . Both Congress and HHS define “individ…”
- Florida Ex Rel. Attorney General v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2011, 648 F.3d 1235)“…is paid for health care in the normal course of business.” 45 C.F.R. § 160.103. And in 2009, Congress expanded HIPAA’s…”
- Zani v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2017, 246 F. Supp. 3d 835)✓Rite Aid sent a prerecorded flu shot reminder to a pharmacy customer's cell phone. Reading the TCPA health care exemption against 160.103, the court held the call conveyed a health care message made on behalf of a covered entity, and granted Rite Aid summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 42
§ 1396rRequirements for nursing facilitiesIn force
In this subchapter, the term “nursing facility” means an institution (or a distinct part of an institution) which— is primarily engaged in providing to residents— skilled nursing care and related services for residents who require medical or nursing care, rehabilitation services for the rehabilitation of injured, disabled, or sick persons, or on a regular basis, health-related care and services to individuals who because of their mental or physical condition require care and services (above the level of room and board) which can be made available to them only through institutional facilities, and is not primarily for the care and treatment of mental diseases; has in effect a transfer agreement (meeting the requirements of section 1395x(l) of this title) with one or more hospitals having agreements in effect under section 1395cc of this title; and meets the requirements for a nursing facility described in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section. Such term also includes any facility which is located in a State on an Indian reservation and is certified by the Secretary as meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) and subsections (b), (c), and (d).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 417 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski (Supreme Court of the United States 2023, 599 U.S. 166)“…sions meet this test. To start, we note that both reside in 42 U. S. C. §1396r(c), which expressly concerns “[r]equire…”
- Wisconsin Department of Health & Family Services v. Blumer (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 534 U.S. 473)“…rophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA or Act), 102 Stat. 754 , 42 U. S. C. § 1396r5 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), a complex set…”
- Brogdon Ex Rel. Cline v. National Healthcare Corp. (District Court, N.D. Georgia 2000, 103 F. Supp. 2d 1322)“…al standards required for participating nursing homes under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396r (Medicaid); 3. Violation of stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3058gState Long-Term Care Ombudsman programIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
In order to be eligible to receive an allotment under section 3058b of this title from funds appropriated under section 3058a of this title and made available to carry out this subpart, a State agency shall, in accordance with this section— establish and operate an Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman; and carry out through the Office a State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program. The Office shall be headed by an individual, to be known as the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, who shall be selected from among individuals with expertise and experience in the fields of long-term care and advocacy. The Ombudsman shall be responsible for the management, including the fiscal management, of the Office.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc. (2001) held 42 U.S.C. 3058g(a)(3) and (5) govern the ombudsman office's duties and do not state a public policy clear enough to support a wrongful discharge claim. Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging v. Basta (2022) applied 3058g(f) to uphold a state conflict of interest form.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Puerto Rico Office of the Ombudsman for the Elderly Ex Rel. Leon v. Puerto Rico (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2009, 665 F. Supp. 2d 74)“…an enforceable right under § 1983). PROOE also cites 42 U.S.C. § 3058g(j), in support of its proposition that…”
- Newman v. Kelly (District Court, District of Columbia 1994, 848 F. Supp. 228)“…uant to the federal Older Americans Act Amendments of 1992, 42 U.S.C. § 3058g, Pub.L. No. 102-375, § 712 , 106 Stat…”
- Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging v. Basta (Appellate Court of Illinois 2022, 468 Ill. Dec. 773)✓An area agency on aging argued a state ombudsman conflict-of-interest form was a rule needing rulemaking. Reading 42 U.S.C. 3058g(f) as putting the duty to identify conflicts on the state agency, the court held the form merely exercised that duty, so no rulemaking was required.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 42 CFR 483.10, Resident Rights (federal nursing facility regulation; no camera or monitoring provision)(law.cornell.edu)
- 42 U.S.C. 1395i-3, Nursing Home Reform Act, Medicare skilled nursing facility resident rights(law.cornell.edu)
- 45 CFR 160.103, HIPAA "covered entity" definition(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511, federal Wiretap Act, interception and one-party consent exception(law.cornell.edu)
- 42 U.S.C. 3058g, Older Americans Act, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program(law.cornell.edu)
- Administration for Community Living, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program(acl.gov).gov
- Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 242, Subchapter R, Electronic Monitoring of Resident's Room(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- 210 ILCS 32/5, Authorized Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities Act, Definitions(ilga.gov).gov