966 N.W.2d 78
Wis. Ct. App.2021Background
- In Feb. 2020 Beatriz Banuelos requested that UW Health provide copies of her patient health care records in electronic format to her attorneys.
- UW Health delivered electronic copies but invoiced Banuelos using the statutory per‑page paper rates from Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f)(b)1.
- Banuelos sued seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging the fees were unlawful under § 146.83(3f).
- The circuit court granted UW Health’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Banuelos appealed.
- The sole legal question on appeal was statutory interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f): whether a provider may charge the enumerated paper per‑page fees (or other nonenumerated fees) when complying with a request for electronic copies.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 146.83(3f) permits only the specific enumerated fees that apply to the particular request, and because electronic copies are not covered by any enumerated fee, no fee may be charged for providing electronic copies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 146.83(3f) permits charging paper per‑page (or other) fees for electronic copies of patient records | Banuelos: § 146.83(3f) limits chargeable fees to the statute’s enumerated items; electronic copies are not enumerated, so no fee may be charged | UW Health: § 146.83(3f) does not limit fees for electronic copies (silence means no statutory cap); alternatively, the paper per‑page maximum serves as a baseline fee for unenumerated media | Court: § 146.83(3f) is plain — providers may charge only the enumerated fees that apply; because electronic copies are not enumerated, providers may not charge for them |
| Whether § 146.83(3f) falls outside the statute’s scope such that electronic copies are unregulated | Banuelos: The statute’s term “copies of a patient’s health care records” includes all formats and is governed by the enumerated fee list | UW Health: Repeal of earlier electronic‑copy mandate and § 146.836’s separate reference to electronic records show § 146.83(3f) doesn’t regulate electronic copies | Court: Repeal and § 146.836 do not exclude electronic copies from § 146.83(3f); silence in (3f)(b) means no fee is authorized for electronic copies |
| Whether the paper per‑page maximum is a catch‑all “baseline” fee for unenumerated formats | Banuelos: No textual basis for treating paper rates as a catch‑all; statute enumerates allowable fees and nothing else | UW Health: Legislature didn’t expressly say unenumerated media must be free; paper rate should be baseline | Court: Argument is undeveloped and lacks statutory textual support; cannot read a baseline fee into the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (establishes Wisconsin plain‑meaning statutory‑interpretation framework)
- Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers LLC, 356 Wis. 2d 665, 849 N.W.2d 693 (2014) (standard for pleading and motion to dismiss reviewed de novo)
- Moya v. Aurora Healthcare, Inc., 375 Wis. 2d 38, 894 N.W.2d 405 (2017) (interprets § 146.83 and suggests nonenumerated fees are not allowed)
- Bostco LLC v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 350 Wis. 2d 554, 835 N.W.2d 160 (2013) (use of prior decisions to inform statutory meaning)
- Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., 388 Wis. 2d 546, 933 N.W.2d 654 (2019) (treats § 146.83(3f)(b) as setting allowable fees)
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee, 341 Wis. 2d 607, 815 N.W.2d 367 (2012) (legislature’s specific listing of authorized fees demonstrates intent to limit fees)