Tammie Thompson v. Ciox Health, LLC, 52 F.4th 171

Plaintiffs Tammie Thompson and Debra Love requested medical-record copies after injuries; records and invoices were produced by Ciox Health, LLC and ScanSTAT Technologies LLC, third-party medical-records vendors.
Plaintiffs sued Ciox and ScanSTAT in federal court alleging the fees charged violated the South Carolina Physicians’ Patient Records Act (the Act) and sought class relief.
The district court dismissed, concluding the Act does not apply to medical-records companies and (alternatively) that the Act creates no private right of action against them.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the Act’s plain text limits its coverage to physicians and other statutory owners of records, not third‑party vendors who act as agents for those owners.
The court declined plaintiffs’ late request to certify a question to the South Carolina Supreme Court, rejected the claim of statutory absurdity, and noted agents do not assume duties beyond the statute’s terms.
The panel also addressed a jurisdictional point: CAFA diversity was treated as satisfied by an uncontested allegation fixing defendants’ principal place of business.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Patient Records Act apply to third‑party records vendors?	Vendors performing record fulfillment are subject to the Act and its fee caps.	The Act applies only to physicians and other statutory owners; vendors are not covered.	The Act does not cover vendors; it applies to physicians/owners only.
May the Fourth Circuit certify the question to S.C. Supreme Court?	Court should certify unresolved state-law question.	No timely certification request; federal court can decide under settled law.	Certification denied as untimely and unnecessary.
Is there a private right of action under the Act against vendors?	Plaintiffs assumed a private right exists and applies to vendors.	Even if a private right exists, it applies to statutory owners, not vendors.	Court did not decide private‑right issue because the Act does not reach vendors; dismissal affirmed.
Was federal jurisdiction proper under CAFA?	Complaint alleged diversity but lacked explicit principal place of business facts.	Jurisdictional facts were uncontested at argument and treated as constructively amended.	Jurisdiction sustained by treating uncontested assertion as amendment.

Krueger v. Angelos, 26 F.4th 212 (4th Cir. 2022) (standard of review for dismissal)
Powell v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 88 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 1996) (timeliness limits certification requests)
National Bank of Wash. v. Pearson, 863 F.2d 322 (4th Cir. 1988) (certification inappropriate after forum changes)
Roe v. Doe, 28 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 1994) (when certification is required)
Eubanks v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., 561 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2009) (apply state court statutory construction rules)
Sloan v. Hardee, 640 S.E.2d 457 (S.C. 2007) (clear statutory text controls interpretation)
Catawba Indian Tribe of S.C. v. State, 642 S.E.2d 751 (S.C. 2007) (plain‑meaning rule in South Carolina)
Whitlock v. Creswell, 2 S.E.2d 838 (S.C. 1939) (a principal cannot evade statutory duties by delegating to an agent)
Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2019) (agent liability turns on statutory terms)
Ferrell v. Express Check Advance of S.C. LLC, 591 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 2010) (citizenship rules for business entities under diversity jurisdiction)