Photo: shutterstock.comClass Action Lawsuit Claims Law Firms Are Overcharged for Medical Records
A law firm claims it was charged $528 for a request that should have cost $10.
March 16, 2020 at 03:32 PM
3 minute read
A law firm is the named plaintiff in a class action suit filed in federal court in Camden accusing a hospital records contractor of overcharging for medical documents.
Cipriani & Werner of Pittsburgh, which frequently represents defendants in personal injury litigation, claims it was overcharged in violation of New Jersey law, when it obtained a patient's records from Pennsylvania-based Medical Records Online.
The case brings claims for declaratory judgment, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of contract on behalf of others who obtained New Jersey hospital records through MRO.
The suit cites a July 2019 case where Cipriani & Werner, representing retailer Kohl's in a personal injury suit, says it was forced to pay $528 to MRO for the plaintiff's treatment records from John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Edison. The bill was for 518 pages of records, at a dollar a page, plus a $10 search fee. The records were provided to Cipriani & Werner in a PDF file sent by email. Under state law, the charge should have been $10, with no per-page charge, the suit claims. MRO's contracts with hospitals make it the exclusive provider of medical records, according to the suit.
The suit was filed in Camden County Superior Court on Feb. 21 by DeNittis Osefchen Prince of Marlton, and removed to U.S. District Court in Camden on March 13 by Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis of Cherry Hill, the firm representing MRO.
"We've always maintained our pricing is totally consistent with the regulations," Lisa Rodriguez of Schnader Harrison said.
Lawyers from DeNittis Osefchen did not respond to requests for comment.
The suit is brought on behalf of a class of persons or entities who submitted a release allowing them to obtain a patient's New Jersey hospital records, other than the patient, the patient's attorney or other legally authorized representative.
According to the suit, the New Jersey Administrative Code sets fees for hospital records requested by a party other than the patient or his attorney at $1 per page plus a $10 search fee and actual costs for any postage or storage media. The suit also cites a 2015 memo from the state Department of Health, which says a provider may not charge a per-page fee for records that are transmitted electronically. The 2015 memo forbids records providers from charging requesters for the use of nonportable media such as computers or servers, according to lawyers for Cipriani &Werner.
The suit adds that a federal government mandate for electronically stored medical records had replaced the formerly labor-intensive process of locating and photocopying records with the far less burdensome task of sending PDF files by email.
"MRO can electronically copy thousands of pages of electronically stored hospital records in less than five minutes," the suit claims.
Rodriguez said the 2015 memo does not apply to the present case because it never went through the state's official rule-making process and because the Department of Health has no authority over MRO.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute read
Spoliation of Evidence Costs Defendants Nearly $850K in Sanction Award
4 minute read
Fatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute read
$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
