Young v. Healthport Techs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–1918.,14–1918.
• Citation: 877 N.W.2d 124
• Parties: Gerald P. YOUNG, Michael L. Haigh, and Suzanne M. Runyon, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

877 N.W.2d 124

Gerald P. YOUNG, Michael L. Haigh, and Suzanne M. Runyon, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Appellees,
v.
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant.

No. 14–1918.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 18, 2016.

877 N.W.2d 126

Ryan G. Koopmans, Angel A. West, and Ryan W. Leemkuil (until withdrawal) of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

James J. Biscoglia, Ryan C. Nixon, George A. LaMarca, and Gary G. Mattson of LaMarca Law Group, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.

Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, and Elaine F. Gray of Fehseke & Gray Law Offices, Fort Madison, for amicus curiae Iowa Association for Justice.

WIGGINS, Justice.

Patients who requested medical records and billing statements from their healthcare providers filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company that fulfilled their records requests charged excessive fees in violation of Iowa Code section 622.10(6) (2013). The company moved to dismiss the petition, alleging section 622.10(6) did not apply to it because it was not a provider as defined by the statute. The district court denied the motion. We granted the company's application for interlocutory appeal. We affirm the district court and remand the case for further proceedings

877 N.W.2d 127

consistent with this opinion because the well-pleaded facts in the petition indicate the company acted as an agent of the providers by fulfilling the records requests on their behalf.

I. Prior Proceedings.

On April 23, 2014, Gerald P. Young, Michael L. Haigh, and Suzanne M. Runyon filed a class action alleging the fees HealthPort Technologies, Inc. charged for providing copies of their medical records and billing statements exceeded statutorily imposed limits set forth in Iowa Code section 622.10(6). HealthPort filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.421(1)(f ) for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted. The district court denied the motion, concluding section 622.10(6)(a ) plainly requires fees to be based upon actual cost and does not indicate the limitations it imposes apply only to entities meeting the statutory definition of provider in section 622.10(6)(e )(2). Accordingly, the court concluded the class representatives might establish their entitlement to relief under the pleaded facts. HealthPort filed an application for interlocutory appeal. We granted the application.

II. Issue.

The only issue we must decide in this appeal is whether the district court properly denied HealthPort's motion to dismiss.

III. Scope of Review.

We review district court rulings on motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted for correction of errors at law. Rees v. City of Shenandoah, 682 N.W.2d 77, 78 (Iowa 2004).

IV. Standards When Deciding a Motion to Dismiss.

A court should grant a motion to dismiss "only if the petition on its face shows no right of recovery under any state of facts." Tate v. Derifield, 510 N.W.2d 885, 887 (Iowa 1994). Thus, a motion to dismiss may be properly granted "only when there exists no conceivable set of facts entitling the non-moving party to relief." Rees, 682 N.W.2d at 79 (quoting Barkema v. Williams Pipeline Co., 666 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Iowa 2003) ). When a moving party attacks a claim by filing a motion to dismiss, that party "admits well-pleaded facts and waives ambiguity or uncertainty in the petition." Schaffer v. Frank Moyer Const., Inc., 563 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997). A court must decide the merits of a motion to dismiss based on the facts alleged in the petition, not the facts alleged by the moving party or facts that may be developed in an evidentiary hearing.¹ Berger v. Gen. United Grp., Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630, 634 (Iowa 1978) ; Riediger v. Marrland Dev. Corp., 253 N.W.2d 915, 916–17 (Iowa 1977).

Under our notice-pleading standards, nearly every case will survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted. Smith v. Smith, 513 N.W.2d 728, 730 (Iowa 1994). To survive a motion to dismiss, the petition need not allege the ultimate facts to support each element of a cause of action. Id. However, it must contain factual allegations sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of each claim asserted so the defendant can adequately respond.

877 N.W.2d 128

Schmidt v. Wilkinson, 340 N.W.2d 282, 283 (Iowa 1983). The allegations in a petition comply with this fair-notice requirement if the petition informs the defendant of the general nature of the claim and the incident giving rise to it. Soike v. Evan Matthews & Co., 302 N.W.2d 841, 842 (Iowa 1981). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court construes the petition in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves any doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Turner v. Iowa State Bank & Trust Co., 743 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2007).

V. Analysis.

Section 622.10(6) of the Iowa Code provides:

At any time, upon a written request from a patient, a patient's legal representative or attorney, or an adverse party pursuant to subsection 3, any provider shall provide copies of the requested records or images to the requester within thirty days of receipt of the written request. The written request shall be accompanied by a legally sufficient patient's waiver unless the request is made by the patient or the patient's legal representative or attorney.

a. The fee charged for the cost of producing the requested records or images shall be based upon the actual cost of production. If the written request and accompanying patient's waiver, if required, authorizes the release of all of the patient's records for the requested time period, including records relating to the patient's mental health, substance abuse, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome-related conditions, the amount charged shall not exceed the rates established by the workers' compensation commissioner for copies of records in workers' compensation cases. If requested, the provider shall include an affidavit certifying that the records or images produced are true and accurate copies of the originals for an additional fee not to exceed ten dollars.

b. A patient or a patient's legal representative or a patient's attorney is entitled to one copy free of charge of the patient's complete billing statement, subject only to a charge for the actual costs of postage or delivery charges incurred in providing the statement. If requested, the provider or custodian of the record shall include an affidavit certifying the billing statements produced to be true and accurate copies of the originals for an additional fee not to exceed ten dollars.

c. Fees charged pursuant to this subsection are exempt from the sales tax pursuant to section 423.3, subsection 96. A provider providing the records or images may require payment in advance if an itemized statement demanding such is provided to the requesting party within fifteen days of the request. Upon a timely request for payment in advance, the time for providing the records or images shall be extended until the greater of thirty days from the date of the original request or ten days from the receipt of payment.

d. If a provider does not provide to the requester all records or images encompassed by the request or does not allow a patient access to all of the patient's medical records encompassed by the patient's request to examine the patient's records, the provider shall give written notice to the requester or the patient that providing the requested records or images would be a violation of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–191.

e. As used in this

...