Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Medical Center 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 840, CA 4th, No. D047004, September 22, 2006 Patient has a Private Right of Action to Enforce non-compliance to a Evidence Code § 1158
The California Court of Appeal, 4th District of California, Div. 1 has ruled again on a case involving the 10 cents per page charge limit to a healthcare provider for making copies of medical records in response to a medical authorization. The court ruled on whether Evidence Code §1158 provides for a private right of action to dispute the extra charges specified in the statute.
The plaintiff, Patience Thornburg, presented El Centro Regional Medical Center with an authorization to obtain medical records. The Medical Center had contracted with Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., a copy service to respond to all such requests. Bactes responded to the plaintiff’s request by sending a the records and a bill exceeding the 10 cents per page limit in Evidence Code § 1158 .
The Court of Appeal concluded in Thornburg v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 43 (Thornburg I) last March that the contract between the Medical Center and Bactes for responding to patient’s requests for records did constitute an agency relationship. In so doing, the court determined that the “reasonable cost” limitation of 10 cents per page applies to both the Medical Center and to Bactes.
A writ was issued, directing the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the Bactes demurrer and to enter a new order consistent with the opinion.
El Centro Regional Medical Center asserted in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that Evidence Code §1158 does not provide a private right of action for alleged overcharges, but is instead a regulatory provision enforceable exclusively by the Department of Health Services.
The trial court granted the motion and Thornburg appealed.
The court recognized that the statute was designed “to permit a patient a means for obtaining medical records to evaluate the treatment he or she received before determining whether to bring an action against the medical provider. . . .” (National Football League Management Council v. Superior Court (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 895, 903)
In 1996 the legislature enacted CCP § 1985.7 which provides a remedy to enforce non-compliance. It allowed a court to issue an order to show cause why the records should not be produced by the healthcare provider.
In analyzing whether the enforcement of non-compliance to Evidence Code §1158 was governing by an administrative agency, the court reviewed the legislative intent.
The statute subjects health care providers to liability for reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, “in any proceeding to enforce this section.” The intent was not to restrict the remedies available for enforcing Evidence Code §1158.
The subsequent enactment of CCP§ 1987.5 clearly showed the Legislature intended to provide a mechanism and procedure to enforce Evidence Code §1158.
“In light of the foregoing, it is clear to us
the Legislature intended that patients have the right to enforce the cost
limitations of the statute by way of a private right of action. Without the
ability to enforce the statute privately, the cost limitations would, as a
practical matter, be of little use to patients, who would have to pay the
excessive fees and then wait for administrative action. Such a circuitous remedy
would seriously undermine the utility of a procedure designed to assist patients
in the short period of time before the statute of limitations on any potential
medical malpractice claims expired. (See
Thornburg I, supra,
138 Cal.App.4th at p. 51, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 156.)
The Judgment of the trial court was reversed.
Back to Process Server Institute Home Page