Nicodemus v. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital CA1/4
3 Cal. App. 5th 1200
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kristen Nicodemus (plaintiff) requested her Saint Francis medical records through her attorney with a signed authorization; HealthPort, a vendor contracted by Saint Francis, handled record production and invoiced $86.52, charging $0.25/page plus fees.
- Plaintiff sued HealthPort and Saint Francis alleging violations of former Evidence Code §1158 (limits on pre‑litigation reproduction charges) and the UCL, and moved to certify a class of persons whose attorneys requested California providers’ records pre‑litigation and were charged more than §1158 permits.
- HealthPort’s business practice (documentary evidence) showed a uniform process: attorney requests were indexed (billing code “07”), routed to HealthPort, copied centrally, invoiced on a standard form, and charged $0.25/page across California from May 1, 2009 to July 31, 2013.
- Defendants opposed certification, arguing the HealthPort database is both over‑inclusive (it may include requests not made before litigation or unrelated to litigation) and under‑inclusive (it may not record names of guardians/representatives), and that common issues would not predominate; Saint Francis argued the class definition was overbroad as to non‑Saint Francis providers.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding the proposed class not ascertainable and that individual issues (timing and purpose of requests) would overwhelm common questions; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to grant certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class is ascertainable | Class is defined by objective transactional facts (attorney requests with release forms) and HealthPort’s "07" database identifies potential members; any nonmembers can be excluded later | Database is over‑ and under‑inclusive because it lacks timing/purpose of requests and may omit names of some representatives | Reversed: class ascertainable from HealthPort’s records; speculative gaps go to merits/remedy, not ascertainability |
| Whether common issues predominate (community of interest) | HealthPort has a uniform practice of charging $0.25/page and other fees to attorney requesters; the common legal question is whether that practice violates §1158 | The need to determine for each requester whether the request was made prior to litigation creates individualized issues that would predominate | Reversed: common questions predominate because liability turns on HealthPort’s uniform policy; individualized eligibility/damages do not defeat predominance |
| Whether inclusion of Saint Francis defeats certification | Plaintiff can sue HealthPort and a provider; not all joint tortfeasors must be named; damages allocation/manageability can be addressed later | Trial court worried class members seeking records from other providers could not all recover from Saint Francis and that Saint Francis might be unfairly liable | Reversed: inclusion of Saint Francis does not make class uncertaintable; individual damage allocation is not a basis to deny certification |
| Whether trial court’s denial was entitled to deference | Trial court applied erroneous legal assumptions about ascertainability and predominance based on speculation | Defendants argued substantial evidence supported denial | Reversed: appellate court found legal error in trial court’s reasoning and insufficient evidence to support denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App.4th 43 (2006) (purpose of §1158 to let patients evaluate care before suing)
- National Football League Management Council v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App.3d 895 (1983) (discussing legislative purpose of records access statutes)
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (2004) (California public policy favors class actions; certification focuses on procedural suitability)
- Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home Corp., 89 Cal.App.4th 908 (2001) (ascertainability via objective characteristics and transactional facts)
- Aguiar v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 144 Cal.App.4th 121 (2006) (ascertainability need not identify class members at certification; exclusions can be made later)
- Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1193 (2008) (records-based identification of class members supports ascertainability despite subsets requiring further inquiry)
- Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 232 Cal.App.4th 50 (2014) (decertification affirmed where reliable method to identify class was lacking after extensive development)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (community of interest requires predominance, typicality, adequacy)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (2014) (manageability can defeat certification where individualized issues overwhelm common ones)
- In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009) (trial courts have discretion on certification; legal error is reviewed de novo)