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.