Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 22 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4D14–3382 , No. 4D14–3387 , No. 4D14–3391 , No. 4D14–3392.,4D14–3382
• Citation: 196 So.3d 449
• Parties: INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Emergency Physicians of Delray, a Florida corporation; MD Now Medical Centers, Inc., a Florida corporation; Select Physical Therapy Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Select Physical Therapy, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida; Premier Family Health, P.A., a Florida Professional Association; Wellington Medical Care Associates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Healthport Technologies, LLC; and all other persons and entities similarly situated, Appellants, v. R.V. MATTHEWS III, Patricia Maher, Ron Depaolo, and Lauren McKelvey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott M. McKelvey, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

196 So.3d 449

INPHYNET CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Emergency Physicians of Delray, a Florida corporation; MD Now Medical Centers, Inc., a Florida corporation; Select Physical Therapy Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Select Physical Therapy, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida; Premier Family Health, P.A., a Florida Professional Association; Wellington Medical Care Associates, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Healthport Technologies, LLC; and all other persons and entities similarly situated, Appellants,

v.R.V. MATTHEWS III, Patricia Maher, Ron Depaolo, and Lauren McKelvey, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Scott M. McKelvey, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Appellees.

No. 4D14–3382

No. 4D14–3387

No. 4D14–3391

No. 4D14–3392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 2016.

Beverly A. Pohl, Barbara Viota–Sawisch, Vanessa M. Serrano, and Peter R. Goldman of Broad and Cassel, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Inphynet Contracting Services, Inc.

Michael Fox Orr and Amanda E. Ferrelle of Dawson Orr, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant Premier Family Health, P.A.

Charles M. Auslander, John G. Crabtree and George R. Baise Jr. of Crabtree & Auslander, Key Biscayne, for appellant Wellington Medical Care Associates, LLC.

Roberto M. Vargas of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/intervenor HealthPort Technologies, LLC.

William J. Cornwell, Seth A. Kolton, Sylvia L. Wenger and Howard I. Weiss of Weiss Handler & Cornwell, P.A., and Bruce F. Silver of Silver & Silver, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees.

CONNER

, J.

This is a consolidated appeal of a trial court order granting bilateral class certification, certifying both a plaintiff and a defendant class, in an action challenging fees charged for copies of health care records. This portion of the order is appealable as a non-final order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi)

. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order insofar as it certified a defendant class and a defendant subclass. We affirm, without discussion, the order certifying a plaintiff class. The other aspect of the order which denied stay is reviewable by certiorari, as discussed below. We grant certiorari relief and quash the order denying stay of the entire action pending resolution of two other prior-filed class actions currently pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County. Additionally, we quash that portion of the trial court order that applied a limited stay to the plaintiff subclass, and reverse the imposition of that subclass.

Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings

The four named plaintiffs in this case are existing or past patients of health care providers who received treatment and requested copies of their medical records, bills generated from such treatment, or both, through attorneys as their legal representatives. The plaintiffs filed a class action asserting claims that charges assessed to their legal representatives for these records exceeded the limits of section 456.057, Florida Statutes (2013)

, and the administrative regulations governing the various providers. The plaintiffs contend that their legal representatives paid the excessive charges and passed the charges on to them. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege the excessive charges violate the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The amended complaint (“the Complaint”) asserts a bilateral class action, asking the trial court to certify both a plaintiff class, consisting of:

For the period from June 1, 2009 through the date of entry of judgment herein (the “Class Period”), any person or any person's legal representative who, in violation of Florida law, was charged an excessive amount to obtain copies of health care records from any Florida Record Owner,

(emphasis added) and a defendant class, consisting of:

All Record Owners located in the State of Florida who, during the Class Period, violated Florida law by charging any person or any person's legal representative an excessive amount to obtain copies of requested health care records.

(emphasis added). The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, damages, supplemental relief, and attorney's fees.

The Complaint specifically cites statutory and rule authority for the alleged violations of law. First, the Complaint references section 456.057(6), Florida Statutes (2013)

, which provides:

Any health care practitioner ^{[1 ]} licensed by the department or a board within the department who makes a physical or mental examination of, or administers treatment or dispenses legend drugs to, any person shall, upon request of such person or the person's legal representative, furnish, in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, copies of all reports and records relating to such examination or treatment, including X rays and insurance information.

Id. Next, the Complaint references section 456.057(17), Florida Statutes (2013)

, which provides:

A health care practitioner or records owner furnishing copies of reports or records or making the reports or records available for digital scanning pursuant to this section shall charge no more than the actual cost of copying, including reasonable staff time, or the amount specified in administrative rule by the appropriate board, or the department when there is no board.

Id. Finally, the Complaint references four administrative rules governing fees for medical records: Florida Administrative Code Section 64B8–10.003

(applicable to medical doctors); Section 64B15–15.003 (applicable to osteopaths); Section 64B2–17.0055 (applicable to chiropractors); and Section 64B17–6.005 (applicable to physical therapists). All four administrative codes provide that the reasonable cost of reproducing copies of written or typed documents shall be no more than $1.00 per page for the first twenty-five pages, and no more than $0.25 for each additional page in excess of twenty-five pages. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8–10.003(2), 64B15–15.003(2), 64B2–17.0055(2), 64B17–6.005(2).

The Complaint alleges that the defendants, Premier Family Health, P.A. (“Premier”), Wellington Medical Care Associates, LLC (“Wellington”), and InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. (“Inphynet”), are either corporate entities or professional associations providing health care services. In the trial court and on appeal, Inphynet contends that it is not a health care provider, a medical record owner, or a record custodian. Because we reverse the defendant class certification for other reasons, we do not address this argument.

With respect to Premier, the plaintiffs alleged that Premier violated the statutes and administrative rule by contracting services through another entity, BACTES Imaging Solutions, Inc. BACTES is considered a “ROI” (Release of Information) provider of medical records.² Significant to the proceedings below and to this appeal is the fact that BACTES is named as a defendant in a prior-filed class action suit that was pending at all times material to this case in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County (“the Webber Case”).

Another ROI provider, HealthPort Technologies, LLC (“HealthPort”), was involved in providing medical records to one of the named plaintiffs and successfully moved to intervene in this case. Although not granted full party status, HealthPort was able to participate in the proceedings below, and has appeared in this appeal. Like BACTES, HealthPort asserts an interest in this case because it is a named defendant in another prior-filed class action proceeding, also pending in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County (“the Allen Case”). All three defendants in this case, as well as HealthPort, contend that the Webber Case and the Allen Case assert the same claims and legal theories the plaintiffs are pursuing in this case. The named plaintiffs in this case contend that the class actions filed in the Webber Case and the Allen Case are not similar to this case because, in both of those cases, a ROI is a defendant, whereas in this case, no ROI has been directly sued and the defendant class is composed of medical record owners.

The trial court found that the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a) and (b)

to justify bilateral class certification. As to the defendant class, the trial court found that each named defendant and the defendant class are subject to the limitations on copying costs imposed by either a statute or the respective regulatory boards under which the medical record owner was licensed, and that a class representative could fairly and adequately protect the interests of the defendant class. The trial court determined that “[t]here are no substantial or fundamental conflicts between the Defendants that go to the specific issue in controversy in this litigation.” It also found that “multiple lawsuits would create a substantial risk of inconsistent rulings which would impose incompatible standards of conduct on Defendants.” To address the possibility that there may be some overlap between the named and class defendants in this case and the defendants or defendant classes in the Webber Case and the Allen Case, the trial court created a plaintiff and defendant subclass to include the class parties in this case who may have their claims resolved by either of those cases. The trial court entered a stay as to the proceedings involving the subclasses.

The three defendants and HealthPort gave notice of appeal of the order certifying bilateral classes in this case.

Appellate Analysis

Certification of Defendant Class

Class Certification

Orders granting or denying class certification are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Freedom Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wallant, 891 So.2d 1109, 1113–14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)

(citing Renaissance Cruises, Inc. v. Glassman, 738 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ). “A trial court's decision as to whether a party has satisfied the standing...