Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC
952 N.W.2d 831
Wis. Ct. App.2020Background
- Andrea Townsend (plaintiff) sued ChartSwap, LLC after ChartSwap, acting for Milwaukee Radiologists, supplied her medical records and billed a single certified health‑care bill for $35.87.
- Townsend filed a putative class action alleging ChartSwap charged fees exceeding the limits in Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b), which caps copy, certification, retrieval, and shipping charges by health care providers.
- ChartSwap moved to dismiss, arguing § 146.83(3f)(b) applies only to statutorily defined “health care providers,” not third‑party record vendors or billing companies.
- The circuit court granted dismissal, relying on Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC (E.D. Wis.), which held the statute does not impose liability on non‑provider agents.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 990.001(9) (acts by agents) and the remedial provision Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1)(b) bring agents of health care providers within the statute’s fee limits and liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b) to ChartSwap (a non‑health‑care third party providing records) | ChartSwap acted as Milwaukee Radiologists’ agent and must comply with the statutory fee caps | § 146.83(3f)(b) governs only entities that are statutory “health care providers”; non‑providers aren’t liable | Reversed: agents of health care providers are subject to § 146.83 fee limitations under § 990.001(9) and may be sued under § 146.84(1)(b) |
| Unjust enrichment claim | Townsend asserted unjust enrichment based on excessive charges | ChartSwap sought dismissal of all claims | Court did not reach unjust enrichment; resolved case on statutory‑interpretation grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 380 F. Supp. 3d 838 (E.D. Wis. 2019) (district court held statute did not impose liability on non‑health‑care agents)
- Rosecky v. Tomaszewski, 225 Wis. 438 (1937) (predecessor to § 990.001(9): acts by authorized agents are acts of the principal)
- Moya v. Aurora Healthcare, Inc., 375 Wis. 2d 38 (2017) (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 146.83 to protect patients from excessive record‑production charges)
- Cruz v. All Saints Healthcare Sys., Inc., 242 Wis. 2d 432 (2001) (statute reflects legislative intent that patients obtain records at reasonable cost)
- Belding v. DeMoulin, 346 Wis. 2d 160 (2013) (statutory construction: avoid interpretations that render language superfluous)