Credit: Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock How Much Can a Medical Provider Charge for Records? It Depends.
This year has been a rollercoaster year for the interpretation of those statutes, as considerable changes to these statutes went into effect in the first half of 2022, then were partially reversed only months later. Litigators should understand the current state of the law in order to best navigate these rules.
November 09, 2022 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Health Care
A number of statutes and regulations govern how much a health care provider can charge patients, litigants and their attorneys for the reproduction of medical records. This year has been a rollercoaster year for the interpretation of those statutes, as considerable changes to these statutes went into effect in the first half of 2022, then were partially reversed only months later. Litigators should understand the current state of the law in order to best navigate these rules.
The Old Rules
Fees for the reproduction of medical records have historically been governed by rules under New Jersey's Administrative Code. For instance, N.J.A.C. 8:43G-15.3 applied to hospitals and N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.5 applied to healthcare professionals regulated by the state Board of Medical Examiners (BME), including, physicians, podiatrists, midwives, and athletic trainers, among others. Other health care professions, including physical therapists and chiropractors, are governed by separate regulations; in-depth review of those provisions exceeds the scope of this article.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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
NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
4 minute read
Arbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Learning From Experience: The Best and Worst of Years Past
- 2Treasury GC Returns to Davis Polk to Co-Chair White-Collar Defense and Investigations Practice
- 3Decision of the Day: JFK to Paris Stowaway's Bail Revocation Explained
- 4Doug Emhoff, Husband of Former VP Harris, Lands at Willkie
- 5LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
