LexLint.ioBeta

Know the law your code answers to.

Law / United States / Texas

S.B. 1188 (2025), AI diagnostic disclosure duty in electronic health records

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 183.005

In force since .

An AI sector rules rule binding public and private bodies.

How the hook was established
express
What makes it apply
Operator establishment
Obligation class
Disclosure
Audit expectation
none

What it requires

  • If you are a health care practitioner using AI for diagnostic purposes, including AI-generated recommendations on a diagnosis or course of treatment, stay within the scope of your license, do not use AI in a way state or federal law otherwise restricts, and review all AI-created records consistent with Texas Medical Board standards.NIST AI RMFMAP 3.3NIST AI RMFMAP 3.5
  • Disclose your use of AI for diagnostic purposes to the patient.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8
  • A covered entity that violates this chapter risks a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per negligent violation, $25,000 per knowing or intentional violation, or $250,000 per violation involving knowing or intentional use of protected health information for financial gain, plus possible regulatory discipline.

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.

In the frameworks

NIST AI RMF
  • MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
  • MAP 3.5Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function.
  • MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
NIST AI 600-1
MIT mitigations Draft
  • 4.1System Documentation
  • 4.2Risk Disclosure
  • 4.6User Rights & Recourse
FINOS AIGF
ETSI EN 304 223
  • 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
  • 5.3.1-1Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with developers informing operators.
  • 5.3.1-2.1That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes.

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.

If you get it wrong

Criminal exposureNo

Penalty structure

Sec. 183.011(b) sets three tiers per violation per year: $5,000 for a negligent violation, $25,000 for a knowing or intentional violation, and $250,000 where protected health information was knowingly or intentionally used for financial gain. The figure recorded here is the top tier.

Rule
Per violation only
As of
Minimum
5,000
Currency
USD
Per violation unit
Violation
Per violation amount
250,000

Who enforces it

Enforcement body

Attorney General of Texas (injunctive relief and civil penalties); the Health and Human Services Commission and applicable licensing or regulatory agency (investigation and disciplinary action)

What it makes you log

What the log must hold

Output reference

Logging duty

Subsection (a)(3) conditions a practitioner's permitted use of artificial intelligence for diagnosis on the practitioner reviewing every record the AI created, consistent with the Texas Medical Board's own medical records standards. The clause does not use the words logs, records, event recording, or audit trail as a standalone duty, but a review conducted "in a manner consistent with medical records standards" presupposes that the AI-created diagnostic or treatment record exists and is kept for the practitioner to review against those standards. Section 183.009's commission or regulatory-agency investigation duty and Section 183.010's disciplinary-action power, both elsewhere in the chapter, apply to any credible allegation or repeat violation; neither names a review of a kept record, so no audit is expected beyond that chapter-wide investigative power.

Kind
Implicit
As of
Provision
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 183.005(a)(3)
Trigger
automated_decisions

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

A health care practitioner, public or private, may use AI for diagnostic purposes, including AI-generated recommendations on diagnosis or treatment based on a patient's medical record, only if the practitioner stays within the scope of their license, the use is not otherwise restricted by law, and the practitioner reviews all AI-created records consistent with Texas Medical Board standards; a practitioner who uses AI for diagnosis must disclose that use to the patient.

This layers onto, and is narrower than, TRAIGA's own health-care AI disclosure duty at Business & Commerce Code 552.051(f). The chapter's covered entities may face a civil penalty of $5,000 per negligent violation, $25,000 per knowing or intentional violation, or $250,000 per violation where protected health information was knowingly or intentionally used for financial gain, plus regulatory investigation and disciplinary action.

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app makes health care decisions.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .