Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Med. Center
Decision Date | 22 September 2006 |
Docket Number | No. D047004.,D047004. |
Citation | 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 840,143 Cal.App.4th 198 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Patience THORNBURG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EL CENTRO REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant and Respondent. |
Barron Ramos and Barron Ramos, Del Mar, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Martha L. McGill; DiCaro, Coppo & Popcke and Michael R. Popcke, Carlsbad, for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff and appellant Patience Thornburg was a patient at defendant and respondent El Centro Regional Medical Center (El Centro) and in April 2002 Thornburg's attorneys asked El Centro for a copy of her medical records. El Centro provided Thornburg's attorneys with the medical records, but charged them $2 a page.
In general under Evidence Code1 section 1158 a medical care provider, such as El Centro, may charge a patient no more than 10 cents a page for copies of medical records. Thornburg brought a class action lawsuit against El Centro in which she alleged the hospital systematically violated section 1158. El Centro filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The hospital argued that the cost limitation provisions of section 1158 is not enforceable by way of a private civil action. The trial court granted the hospital's motion without leave to amend.
On appeal we reverse. By its terms section 1158 plainly contemplates private enforcement by patients. Nothing in its legislative history or in the cases which have interpreted it suggest any narrower enforcement mechanism.
As against El Centro, Thornburg's complaint alleged the hospital violated section 1158 and should be required to pay damages and restrained from violating the statute. In making its motion for judgment on the pleadings, El Centro asserted section 1158 does not provide for a private right of action for alleged overcharges, but is instead a regulatory provision enforceable exclusively by the Department of Health Services.
After the trial court granted El Centro's motion, judgment was entered and Thornburg filed a timely notice of appeal.
A trial court's ruling on an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings resolves the question of "whether or not the factual allegations that the plaintiff makes are sufficient to constitute a cause of action." (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 12 P.3d 720.) On appeal we review the trial court's resolution of this question de novo. (Ibid.)
Section 1158 provides as follows: "Whenever, prior to the filing of any action or the appearance of a defendant in an action, an attorney at law or his or her representative presents a written authorization therefor signed by an adult patient, by the guardian or conservator of his or her person or estate, or, in the case of a minor, by a parent or guardian of the minor, or by the personal representative or an heir of a deceased patient, or a copy thereof, a physician and surgeon, dentist, registered nurse, dispensing optician, registered physical therapist, podiatrist, licensed psychologist, osteopathic physician and surgeon, chiropractor, clinical laboratory bioanalyst, clinical laboratory technologist, or pharmacist or pharmacy, duly licensed as such under the laws of the state, or a licensed hospital, shall make all of the patient's records under his, hers or its custody or control available for inspection and copying by the attorney at law or his, or her, representative, promptly upon the presentation of the written authorization.
(National Football League Management Council v. Superior Court (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 895, 903, 188 Cal.Rptr. 337, fn. omitted.)
In Lavine v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1019, 215 Cal.Rptr. 708 a hospital initially refused to provide the records required by section 1158. The plaintiff filed a complaint in which she sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The hospital then agreed to provide the requested records and in upholding an order refusing to provide the plaintiff with any further relief, the court stated: [¶] . . . (Lavine v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1022-1023, fn. 3, 215 Cal.Rptr. 708.)
In 1996 the Legislature provided some of the absent specification in Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.7, which provides in part: "When a medical provider fails to comply with Section 1158 of the Evidence Code, in addition to any other available remedy, the demanding party may apply to the court for an order to show cause why the records should not be produced." The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of the 1996 legislation states: 2
More recently in a related case, Thornburg v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal. App.4th 43, 51, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 156 (Thornburg I), we found a copy service El Centro had retained for the purpose of responding to requests made under the statute was bound by section 1158's cost limitations. We stated: "Given section 1158's manifest purpose of limiting the cost of copying, we cannot construe the scope of the statute so narrowly and mechanically that the limitation is easily and effectively avoided by health care providers who attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nicodemus v. Saint Francis Mem'l Hosp.
...of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. ). (Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 198, 204–205, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 840 [section 1158 is enforceable by private right of action].)On November 22, 2013, plaintiff moved for an order cer......
-
Forte v. O'Farrell, H029909 (Cal. App. 8/30/2007)
...Generally, we avoid statutory interpretations that would render part of a statute meaningless. (See Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 198, 204.) Finally, under Forte's overly simplistic and literal understanding of section 170.6, once a party filed a pere......
-
Dep't of Fair Emp't & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc.
...of whether a statute creates a private right of action is "primarily [an issue] of legislative intent"); Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Med. Ctr., 143 Cal. App. 4th 198, 204 (2006) (stating that "'[t]he question of whether a regulatory statute creates a private right of action depends on l......
-
Scocca v. Smith
...of whether a statute creates a private right of action is "primarily [an issue] of legislative intent"); Thornburg v. El Centro Regional Med. Ctr., 143 Cal. App. 4th 198, 204 (2006) (stating that "'[t]he question of whether a regulatory statute creates a private right of action depends on l......