Moya v. Aurora Healthcare, Inc.
2016 WI App 5
| Wis. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Moya, a motor-vehicle-accident plaintiff, signed HIPAA authorizations permitting her personal-injury attorney (Welcenbach) to obtain her medical records. Welcenbach requested records from Aurora; HealthPort, a contractor, provided certified copies and billed $20 retrieval and $8 certification fees, paid by the law firm.
- Moya sued HealthPort as a class action, alleging the fees violated Wis. Stat. § 146.83(3f) because her attorney was a "person authorized by the patient" and thus exempt from the $20 and $8 fees.
- HealthPort moved for summary judgment arguing the statutory definition of "person authorized by the patient" (Wis. Stat. § 146.81(5)) does not include privately retained personal-injury attorneys who merely have a client's HIPAA release.
- The circuit court denied HealthPort's motions, construing "person authorized by the patient" variably across the statute; HealthPort sought reconsideration after the legislature added § 146.83(lb) (expressly including State Public Defender-appointed attorneys given written consent), which was denied.
- The court of appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, concluded § 146.81(5) does not include private attorneys with a HIPAA authorization, reversed the circuit court, and directed entry of summary judgment for HealthPort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a personal-injury attorney who possesses a client-signed HIPAA authorization qualifies as a "person authorized by the patient" under Wis. Stat. §§ 146.81–146.83 and is therefore exempt from $8 certification and $20 retrieval fees | Moya: the signed written authorization makes her attorney a "person authorized by the patient," so the fees cannot be charged | HealthPort: § 146.81(5) defines "person authorized by the patient" as those who can consent to release of records (parents, guardians, personal representative, any person authorized in writing to consent), and a HIPAA form merely allows the attorney to obtain copies, not to consent to release; attorneys therefore are not included | Court: Affirmed HealthPort — the statutory definition in § 146.81(5) does not include private attorneys with HIPAA releases; § 146.83(lb)’s addition of SPD-appointed attorneys ("notwithstanding § 146.81(5)") confirms attorneys were not originally included |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304 (framework for de novo review of summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633 (principles of statutory interpretation; start with plain language and context)
- Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 293 Wis. 2d 123 (statutory language must be read in context; avoid isolating phrases)
- La Crosse Lutheran Hosp. v. La Crosse County, 133 Wis. 2d 335 (if statute omits a situation, remedy is for legislature, not courts)