A Florida court recently ruled in a case that could affect how medical records companies charge for copies of patient records. In the case of Patricia Webber v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., the court found that Bactes had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by overcharging for medical records when requests were made by legal representatives. This ruling has implications for patients seeking access to their medical records through their lawyers.
The case began when Patricia Webber, representing herself and others in a class action, appealed a lower court's decision that denied her request for a permanent injunction against Bactes Imaging Solutions, now known as Sharecare Health Data Services, LLC. Webber's complaint claimed that Bactes routinely charged $1.00 per page for medical records requested by lawyers, which was four times the maximum charge allowed under Florida law. The lower court had ruled in favor of Bactes, stating that no violation of FDUTPA had occurred.
The background of the case is rooted in the Florida Administrative Code, which sets limits on how much medical records companies can charge for copies of patient records. According to Rule 64B8-10.003, patients can only be charged $1.00 for the first twenty-five pages and twenty-five cents for each additional page. However, Bactes argued that the higher rate was permissible because the requests were made by lawyers on behalf of the patients, classifying them as 'other entities.' This classification was central to the dispute.
Webber's legal team pointed out that a similar case, Allen v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, had already established that patients should not be charged the higher rate when their lawyers requested records on their behalf. In that case, the court ruled that the patient rate must be applied regardless of who submitted the request. Despite this precedent, Bactes continued to charge the higher rate, prompting Webber to seek a permanent injunction.
During the hearings, Bactes acknowledged that it continued to charge the higher rate but argued that this did not violate FDUTPA. The trial court, however, concluded that a violation of the administrative rule did not automatically equate to a violation of FDUTPA. This decision was challenged by Webber, leading to the appeal.
The court's ruling on January 15, 2020, reversed the lower court's decision. The judges stated, "We conclude that Bactes's conduct constitutes a violation of FDUTPA," emphasizing that charging the 'other entities' rate when a lawyer submits a request on behalf of a patient is an unfair practice. The judges noted that this practice is not only financially burdensome but also obstructs patient access to their own medical records.
The ruling highlighted the importance of patient access to medical records, stating that the law aims to protect consumers from unfair practices. The court pointed out that requiring patients to pay higher fees simply because their lawyer submitted the request is both unfair and contrary to public policy. The judges noted, "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."
As a result of this ruling, Bactes is now required to comply with the established fee limits when charging for medical records requested by legal representatives. This decision not only impacts Webber and the class she represents but also sets a precedent for other medical records companies in Florida.
The ruling has significant implications for patients who rely on their lawyers to obtain medical records for legal purposes. It ensures that patients will not be unfairly charged higher fees simply because they choose to have their lawyer handle the request. The court's decision reinforces the idea that patients should have easy and affordable access to their medical records, regardless of who is making the request.
Looking ahead, Bactes may seek to appeal this ruling, but the court's decision is a strong affirmation of patient rights in the context of medical records access. The case underscores the importance of consumer protection laws like FDUTPA in ensuring fair practices in the healthcare industry.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether there are any related cases pending or if Bactes intends to appeal the ruling. However, the outcome of this case may influence how other medical records companies approach their pricing practices in the future.