Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Justices: Attorneys need not pay for client health records

Justices: Attorneys need not pay for client health records

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday held that personal injury lawyers need not pay certain statutory fees in order to obtain client medical records if the lawyers have written authorization from the client.

Wisconsin’s health-records statutes exempt patients and “persons authorized by the patient” from having to pay the $20 retrieval fees and the $8 certification fees that most people must cough up to see medical records.

The justices held Thursday that personal injury attorneys are among those included in a provision, Wis. Stat. 146.81(5), that defines exactly what is implied by “persons authorized by the patient.”

More specifically, the justices, in Thursday’s 4-1 decision written by Justice Michael Gableman, held that a personal injury attorney who obtains a written HIPPA release from a client may obtain health records without paying the statutory fees. Justices Rebecca Bradley and Dan Kelly did not participate in the decision, and Justice Annette Ziegler dissented.

The case stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by Milwaukee resident Carolyn Moya in 2013 after Atlanta-based records management firm Healthport charged her attorneys $500 for 11 sets of certified records. She subtracted that amount from the settlement she received in the personal injury lawsuit.

Moya had argued her written authorization should have been enough to let her lawyers fall into the category of “persons authorized by the patient” and obtain the records without having to pay the fees.

Healthport had argued, among other things, that personal-injury lawyers whose clients sign releases for their medical records only have the ability to view and obtain the records. For an exemption to be granted, patients would also have to give lawyers authority to tell health care providers to release the medical information in the first place.

However, the majority did not buy Healthport’s argument, finding the text of the statute does not specify what the patient must authorize a person to do.

Thursday’s decision also rejected Healthport’s argument that Moya’s class-action was barred by the voluntary-payment doctrine, which requires a party challenging a bill to make the challenge either before paying the bill or at the time it makes the payment. Healthport had also argued that the lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of waiver because Moya could have ordered the records herself.

The majority found both did not apply because it would undermine the purpose of the health-records provision.

Ziegler, in her dissenting opinion, wrote that she believed the Court of Appeals got it right and that it is the legislature’s role to revise the statutes to be more clear about who is exempt from paying the fees.

The justice’s decision Thursday reverses the District 1 Court of Appeals decision siding with Healthport and finding that that to qualify for an exemption from the fees, the person requesting medical records must also be able to make health care-related decisions for the client.

The decision affirms Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Karen Christenson’s denial of summary judgement and reconsideration motions made by Healthport.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests