Appellant cites Robbinsdale Clinic v. This case does not present such circumstances. Appellant has simply added, on appeal, new claims or new theories of claims, with no justification as to why they were not raised below. A concurring judge in Stubbs v. North Mem'l Med. The majority declined to reach the issue.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that the panel reviews de novo.
Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd. Flour Exchange Bldg. But neither of the other two factors allowing implication of a private cause of action is met here. 1 and 5, seem to give exclusive authority for enforcement of the Patients Bill of Rights to the state commissioner of health. Appellant's claim appears to be in the nature of a claim for invasion of privacy.