McKee v. Wash. State Dep't of Corrs.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 36354-6-III |
| Parties | JEFFREY R. MCKEE, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Jeffrey McKee has filed a pro se appeal of an order dismissing his claims for relief under the Uniform Health Care Information Act (UHCIA), chapter 70.02 RCW. We affirm.
The Washington State Department of Corrections (the Department or DOC) facilitates medical care for its inmates and is a medical provider for purposes of the UHCIA. Mr. McKee was housed at the DOC's Coyote Ridge Corrections Center in 2014. While there, he requested a review of his medical records under the UHCIA.
The Coyote Ridge facility provided Mr. McKee with a medical file review on January 8, 2015. Mr. McKee filed a lawsuit in Franklin County Superior Court under the UHCIA that same day asserting the Department had not provided him a timely review.
Mr McKee was then transferred to the DOC's Airway Heights Corrections Center. In 2016 and 2017, Mr. McKee made additional UHCIA requests, this time from the Airway Heights facility. The Department afforded Mr. McKee an opportunity to review his paper medical file after both requests. At both reviews, Mr. McKee's medical file included a CD (compact disc), of which he was unable to access the contents.
In June 2017, Mr. McKee filed the action subject to this appeal in Spokane County Superior Court, alleging the Department had failed to timely provide him his complete medical and mental health file. Specifically, Mr. McKee claimed he was not allowed to timely review his "electronic health care information" and the CD which he claimed contained his X-rays. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 3-4. He also challenged the Airway Heights facility's policy that limited medical file reviews to once every six months.[1] In his complaint Mr. McKee sought an order of compliance for full disclosure of his medical and mental health information "declaratory and injunctive relief," and attorney fees and costs. Id. at 4. Mr. McKee did not seek actual damages under RCW 70.02.170(2).
During discovery in the Spokane County case, the Department repeatedly asked Mr. McKee to identify the medical records he believed he had not been allowed to review. Mr. McKee simply reiterated his claims that the Department had withheld his X-rays and "all the health care information that is contained in electronic format." Id. at 264. In November 2017, the Department's counsel sent Mr. McKee a letter asking him to clarify what information he needed to see. Counsel informed Mr. McKee the Department held his X-rays in hard copy and electronic format. The hard copies were actual films stored at a facility in Thurston County. Counsel declined to transport the films to Mr. McKee because only one film existed of each X-ray, and they could not be safely shipped. Counsel also declined to send the actual films because he opined the UHCIA did not require him to do so. Instead, counsel offered to make the films available for inspection at the Attorney General's Office in Tumwater, or at the Department's headquarters. Counsel also told Mr. McKee copies of the films could be made and produced at Mr. McKee's expense.
Mr. McKee replied that he could not travel to Thurston County. He argued that inspection of the films in person would not resolve his lawsuit, because he claimed he was not allowed to review the contents of the CD, also containing X-rays, located in his paper file at the Airway Heights facility. Mr. McKee could not specify any electronically stored medical information, other than his X-rays, which he had not been allowed to review.
In January 2018, the Department's counsel sent Mr. McKee a letter enclosing "every document that could conceivably fall within what [Mr. McKee was] considering 'electronic health care information.'" Id. at 275. Included in the over 400 pages of documents provided were screenshots of X-rays contained in the CD from the medical file. These X-rays were distinct from the actual films being stored in Thurston County. Counsel expressed his opinion that this disclosure was tantamount to the relief Mr. McKee was seeking in his lawsuit, and that the suit was now moot.
The Department subsequently moved to dismiss Mr. McKee's Franklin County lawsuit for mootness, and a hearing on the motion was held in March 2018. Mr. McKee moved to amend his complaint to include a claim that the Department had withheld his X-rays, asking for declaratory and injunctive relief. At a hearing on the motions, Mr. McKee conceded the Department had fulfilled its duty to inform him about his X-rays. The Franklin County Superior Court dismissed, without prejudice, Mr. McKee's lawsuit for mootness. At the conclusion of the hearing the Department stipulated Mr. McKee could amend the complaint in the Spokane County action to include any outstanding issues from Franklin County.[2]
In April 2018, the Department moved to dismiss Mr. McKee's Spokane County lawsuit for mootness. The Department contended Mr. McKee's suit was moot because the Department had either provided him copies of his records from electronic databases, or given him the opportunity to physically inspect or pay for copies of his X-ray films stored in Thurston County. It further contended Mr. McKee's claims concerning the Airway Heights review policy were moot because the facility's handbook did not reflect current practice, and because Mr. McKee had never actually been denied a review under the policy. In support of its motion, the Department included affidavits from counsel evidencing that the Department had provided Mr. McKee screenshots of X-rays and a complete copy of his recorded health care information, including mental health records.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on June 22, 2018. In response to the Department's argument that it provided Mr. McKee with all the records he was seeking, the trial court asked Mr. McKee what information he believed to be missing. Mr. McKee acknowledged he had not identified any in his response to the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the trial court determined the UHCIA did not require a provider to produce both written and electronic documentation of electronically stored records.
After the hearing, Mr. McKee filed a declaration where he reiterated his belief that he had not been allowed to review his complete medical and mental health record. Again, the only record he specifically identified that he had not been allowed to review was the contents of the CD in his medical file.
The trial court issued an order dismissing Mr. McKee's case in August 2018. The order stated Mr. McKee's claims were moot because the court could no longer provide him with any effective relief. The court sent the parties a letter explaining its ruling. In issuing its order the court stated that it reviewed the pleadings and various declarations filed over the course of the case. The court determined that relief under the UHCIA was limited to an order of compliance and actual damages, not declaratory and injunctive relief. It went on to find that the Department had provided Mr. McKee Id. at 24. As a result, the court concluded the Department had provided Mr. McKee his complete health care file, including mental health records. The court also found that the Department gave Mr. McKee an opportunity to review the X-ray films stored in Thurston County when it provided him with the option of purchasing copies of the films, which he had declined. Because the court could not grant Mr. McKee any relief he had not already received, it dismissed his lawsuit for mootness.
In September, Mr. McKee filed a cost bill totaling $680 pursuant to RCW 4.84.030, RCW 4.84.190, and RCW 70.02.170(2). The Department filed an objection, contending Mr. McKee was not entitled to costs as he was not the prevailing party in his lawsuit. The Department also argued that a hypothetical award of costs to Mr. McKee would be offset by numerous judgments entered against Mr. McKee in previously adjudicated cases. The record does not include any court order addressing Mr. McKee's request for costs. According to the Department, the reason for the lack of an order is that Mr. McKee did not note the request for hearing. Mr. McKee does not challenge this representation.
Mr. McKee appeals the Spokane County Superior Court's order granting dismissal.
The UHCIA recognizes a patient's right to access health care information. RCW 70.02.005(2). When a patient requests recorded health care information, a provider has 15 working days to respond. RCW 70.02.080(1). Generally, the provider must "[m]ake the information available for examination during regular business hours and provide a copy, if requested, to the patient." RCW 70.02.080(1)(a). A health care provider may generally "charge a reasonable fee for providing the health care information and is not required to permit examination or copying until the fee is paid." RCW 70.02.080(2). If a health care provider fails to provide records as mandated by the UHCIA, the patient may initiate a civil action against the provider. Available remedies include an order of compliance, actual damages, attorney fees, and other reasonable expenses. RCW 70.02.170(2).
The dispute in this case turns on whether Mr. McKee's UHCIA claim was properly dismissed based on mootness. The Department argues that by the time it filed its motion to dismiss it had responded to Mr. McKee's UHCIA claim in full; thus, there was no further relief available, given Mr McKee had not made a claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial