Don't you see how contorted you have to make the statute in order to create something that could wrongly be interpreted to your desired result ?
How much simpler it would have been to add "Medical records shall NOT be obtainable by search warrant" to the search warrant statute itself (933) if that was truely what they intended to do ?
Even if you were correct, since 395 applies to licensed medical facilities, if someone obtains a copy of their own medical records, it follows that THAT copy could be obtained via search warrant.
CHAPTER 395
HOSPITAL LICENSING AND REGULATION
395.001 Legislative intent.--It is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the protection of public health and safety in the establishment, construction, maintenance, and operation of hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, and mobile surgical facilities by providing for licensure of same and for the development, establishment, and enforcement of minimum standards with respect thereto.
(4) Patient records are confidential and must not be disclosed without the consent of the person to whom they pertain, but appropriate disclosure may be made [by health care facilities] without such consent to:
(d) In any civil or criminal action, unless otherwise prohibited by law, upon the issuance of a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction and proper notice by the party seeking such records to the patient or his or her legal representative.
__________________________________
Given the title and intent of Chapter 395, I have to say it looks like the correct way to read the text is as a directive governing HC facilities, rather than a regulation of the Executive.
I've eaten crow before, and it's not bad with proper seasoning. Pass me the salt, please.