Landay v. Rite Aid
40 A.3d 1280
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Appellants sue Rite Aid for charging a flat $50 fee to reproduce pharmacy records.
- Appellants allege the MRA caps copying fees to actual, reasonable costs, not a flat fee.
- Trial court granted Rite Aid’s preliminary objections, holding MRA does not apply to pharmacies and dismissing the complaint.
- Court held MRA does not apply to pharmacies because a customer is not a patient; found no contract breach.
- Appellants appeal, arguing MRA applies to pharmacies and that MRA terms are incorporated into the contracts.
- Court reverses, holds MRA applies to pharmacies, and contractual terms incorporate MRA; remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MRA apply to pharmacies? | Landay argues pharmacists are health care providers under the MRA; records are medical records. | Rite Aid argues MRA applies only to patients of health care providers, not pharmacies. | Yes; MRA applies to pharmacies. |
| Are MRA terms integrated into Rite Aid’s records copying contracts? | MRA terms were in force and merged into contracts; limits apply to copying fees. | Parties could negotiate terms; MRA not part of contracts if not incorporated. | Yes; MRA terms are incorporated into contracts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiurazzi Law Inc. v. MRO Corporation, 27 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2011) (voluntary payment doctrine discussed in record-fee context)
- Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp., 937 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 2007) (MERGER OF LAW; statutes in force merge into contracts)
- Empire Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Department of Environmental Resources, 546 Pa. 315 (1996) (statutory construction and merging of laws into contracts)
- DePaul v. Kauffman, 441 Pa. 386 (1971) (statutory interpretation and contract incorporation principles)
- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 289 (Pa. 2010) (de novo review; questions of law standard)