A Florida court has ruled in favor of Patricia Webber in her case against Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., now known as Sharecare Health Data Services, LLC. This decision addresses the fees charged for medical records requested by legal representatives on behalf of patients. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards surrounding medical record fees and consumer protection under Florida law.

The case, filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 2D18-4813, stems from Webber's claims that Bactes routinely overcharged for copies of medical records when requests were made by lawyers instead of the patients themselves. The court's decision could have broader implications for how medical records companies handle fees and the rights of patients and their legal representatives.

Background

Patricia Webber filed her case against Bactes Imaging Solutions in January 2020, seeking a permanent injunction and damages. She argued that the company violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by charging $1.00 per page for medical records requested by her lawyer, which is significantly higher than the rate allowed for patients. The standard fee for patients is capped at twenty-five cents per page after the first twenty-five pages, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-10.003.

Bactes contended that it was permitted to charge the higher rate because the request was made by a lawyer, classifying the request as coming from an "other entity." This classification allowed them to charge more than what is typically allowed for patients. However, Webber's argument was supported by a previous case, Allen v. HealthPort Technologies, where a similar issue was addressed, leading to a ruling that favored the patient.

As the case progressed, the trial court initially sided with Webber, granting her partial summary judgment on the declaratory relief claim. However, Bactes continued to charge the higher fee despite the court's ruling. This led to Webber filing for a permanent injunction, which the trial court ultimately denied while granting Bactes's motion for summary judgment regarding the FDUTPA claim.

The Ruling

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, led by Judge Morris, reversed the trial court's decision, stating that Bactes's actions did indeed violate FDUTPA. The court noted, "We conclude that Bactes's conduct constitutes a violation of FDUTPA." The ruling emphasized that charging the higher rate when a lawyer submits a request for medical records on behalf of a patient is an unfair practice that undermines patient access to their medical records.

The court highlighted that the purpose of FDUTPA is to protect consumers from unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices. The ruling stated, "Requiring a patient to jump over an additional hurdle to obtain his or her own medical records... is a practice that we construe to be offensive to public policy." This decision underscores the importance of patient access to medical records and the need for transparency in medical billing practices.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for medical records companies and how they charge for records requested by legal representatives. By clarifying that charging higher fees for records requested by lawyers constitutes an unfair practice, the court has strengthened consumer protections under FDUTPA. This decision may encourage other patients to challenge similar practices and could lead to changes in how medical records companies structure their fees.

Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the importance of patient rights in accessing their medical information. It emphasizes that patients should not face additional barriers or costs when seeking their own medical records, regardless of whether they are requesting them directly or through legal representation.

What's Next

The ruling can potentially be appealed, but it is unclear if Bactes will pursue further legal action. The court has remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion, which means that Webber's claims for a permanent injunction and damages will now move forward in the lower court. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases.