Cotton v. Med-Cor Health Information Solutions, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 May 1996 |
Docket Number | Nos. A96A0850,MED-COR,A96A0852,s. A96A0850 |
Citation | 472 S.E.2d 92,221 Ga.App. 609 |
Parties | COTTON et al. v.HEALTH INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. SMITH et al. v. PMSI, L.P. PMSI, L.P. v. SMITH et al. YARBROUGH et al. v. PMSI, L.P. PMSI, L.P. v. YARBROUGH et al. LAWRENCE et al. v. SMART PROFESSIONAL COPY CORPORATION. SMART PROFESSIONAL COPY CORPORATION v. LAWRENCE et al. to A96A0857. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Carr, Tabb & Pope, David H. Pope, Timothy W. Wolfe, and Victor Alexander, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Karen B. Bragman, Henry M. Perlowski, Atlanta, Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, Timothy N. Toler, Arnold C. Young, Savannah, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Robert W. Foster, Jr., and B. Shane Clanton, Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiffs were patients at various Atlanta area hospitals. Through their attorney or directly, they requested copies of their medical records from the hospitals. Defendants are corporations engaged in the business of providing photocopying and related services for hospitals. They had business relationships with the hospitals under which they were given access to patients' records in order to provide copies of the records to authorized persons requesting them. Defendants did so for plaintiffs and submitted invoices to them imposing charges ranging from $1.04 to $7.60 per page.
After paying the invoices, plaintiffs brought these class action complaints, asserting that the charges were imposed in violation of the Health Records Act in that they exceeded the statutory limit of the reasonable costs of copying and mailing the records. OCGA § 31-33-3(a). Both individually and on behalf of the proposed class, plaintiffs sought partial refunds under theories of breach of statutory duty, unjust enrichment/restitution, and breach of implied contract. They also sought injunctive relief.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss. They argued, among other things, that the Health Records Act does not impose any duty on them and that any recovery by plaintiffs is barred by the voluntary payment doctrine. In an effort to avoid application of this doctrine, plaintiffs amended their complaints by adding allegations that defendants practiced an artifice on them and that they made the payments as a result of misplaced confidence, mistake, and/or neglect.
The cases were consolidated and, after hearing, the trial court accepted defendants' arguments and granted the motions. The court did find, however, that their charges for copying and mailing plaintiffs' medical records were unreasonable and thus excessive.
Appeals were taken to the Supreme Court of Georgia and transferred to this court pursuant to order stating that the equity issues were ancillary to the legal issues and that the constitutionality issues involved "the construction of well-settled principles of law."
In Case Nos. A96A0850, A96A0852, A96A0854, and A96A0856, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their complaints. In Case Nos. A96A0851, A96A0853, A96A0855, and A96A0857, defendants cross-appealed the court's finding that the charges were excessive. We dismissed the cross-appeal in Case No. A96A0851 because of the defendant's failure to file its enumeration of errors and brief in a timely manner. The other cases are consolidated for decision.
In Division 1, we conclude that the court did err in holding that the Health Records Act does not apply to the defendants. In Division 2, we hold that the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' complaints under the voluntary-payment doctrine. The remaining issues in the main appeals are moot, as are the cross-appeals, which are dismissed.
1. In the order appealed from, the trial court determined on the basis of the pleadings that plaintiffs' complaints are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See OCGA § 9-11-12(b)(6); Yates v. Trust Co. Bank etc., 212 Ga.App. 438, 442 S.E.2d 293 (1994).
Massey v. Perkerson, 129 Ga.App. 895, 896(1, 2), 201 S.E.2d 830 (1973). " ' ... Yates, supra.
The Health Records Act governs the furnishing of the record of a patient by a "provider." OCGA § 31-33-1 et seq. Under the Act, a "provider" is defined as meaning all hospitals and other specified entities providing health care services. OCGA § 31-33-1(2). Upon written request from the patient, the provider having custody and control of the patient's record is required to furnish a copy of that record to the patient or to any other person or provider designated by the patient. OCGA § 31-33-2(a), (b). OCGA § 31-33-3(a) states that the party requesting the patient's records shall be responsible to the provider for the "reasonable costs of copying and mailing the patient's record."
The trial court held that the Act by its plain language applies only to health care providers and not to entities such as defendants which supply photocopying services for such providers even though such entities may be acting as the providers' agents. This holding was error under principles of statutory construction and agency law.
City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606, 608(2), 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970).
As we interpret the Health Records Act, the intent of the legislature was to ensure that patients have access to medical records in the custody and control of health care providers without being charged more than the reasonable costs of copying and mailing them. This intent would be completely defeated through a construction of the Act that would allow patients to be charged more than the reasonable copying and mailing costs if the providers hire others to perform the task of supplying the records.
Moreover, Tippins v. Cobb County Parking Auth., 213 Ga. 685, 688, 100 S.E.2d 893 (1957).
2. The voluntary payment doctrine is codified at OCGA § 13-1-13:
Essentially three conditions must be met before recovery of a payment is barred by the doctrine. First, the payment must have been made through ignorance of the law or where all the facts are known. " Rod's Auto Finance v. The Finance Co., 211 Ga.App. 63(1), 438 S.E.2d 175 (1993). Second, the payment must not have been induced by misplaced confidence, artifice, deception, or fraudulent practice on the part of the person to whom the money is paid. Lowe v. Presley, 86 Ga.App. 328, 332, 71 S.E.2d 730 (1952). Third, the payment must not have been made under an urgent necessity or for the other reasons specified in the statute. Compare Strachan Shipping Co. v. Mayor etc., 168 Ga. 309, 147 S.E. 555 (1929), with Rose v. Mayor etc., 89 Ga.App. 599, 80 S.E.2d 725 (1954).
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ellison v. Southstar Energy Services, LLC.
...by plaintiffs, is more analogous to the case at hand than Fitzgerald Water etc. Comm. v. Shaw Indus.,23 Telescripps Cable Co. v. Welsh,24 and Cotton,25 relied upon by In Oxford, a taxpayer sought a tax refund under a statute providing specifically for such an action.26 This Court refused to......
-
Huch v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. ED 89926 (Mo. App. 4/15/2008)
...on theories of breach of contract and money had and received to recover late fees billed and paid); Cotton v. Med-Cor Health Information Solutions, 472 S.E.2d 92, 96 (Ga.App. 1996) (voluntary payment doctrine barred former hospital patients' lawsuit to recover excess fees paid for copies of......
-
Best Jewelry Mfg. Co. v. Reed Elsevier Inc.
...to the relief he seeks") (citation omitted).Plaintiff seeks to forestall this conclusion by citing Cotton v. Med–Cor Health Information Solutions, 221 Ga.App. 609, 472 S.E.2d 92 (1996), in which we reversed a grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that a hospital had violated OCG......
-
SOUTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. Ellison
...68, 606 S.E.2d 10 (2004), Telescripps Cable Co. v. Welsh, 247 Ga.App. 282, 542 S.E.2d 640 (2000) and Cotton v. Med-Cor Health Information Solutions, 221 Ga.App. 609, 472 S.E.2d 92 (1996). However, Appellant has mischaracterized the Court of Appeals' decision, which in no way found that the ......
-
Commercial and Banking Law - Robert A. Weber, Jr.
...S.E.2d at 588-89. 173. Id. at 122, 473 S.E.2d at 590. 174. Id. 175. O.C.G.A. Sec. 31-33-2(a)-(b) (1996). 176. Id. Sec. 31-33-3(a). 177. 221 Ga. App. 609, 472 S.E.2d 92 (1996). 178. Id. at 609, 472 S.E.2d at 94. 179. Id. at 611, 472 S.E.2d at 95. 180. Id. at 613, 472 S.E.2d at 97 (Blackburn,......