97 A.3d 275
Pa.2014Background
- MRO Corporation is a third-party medical-records reproducer with exclusive contracts to provide copies for certain Pennsylvania hospitals; plaintiffs are attorneys who brought a class action alleging MRO overcharged requestors.
- The dispute concerns the Medical Records Act (MRA) as it existed in 2009, principally former 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6152(a)(1) and 6152(a)(2)(i), which required disclosure of the "estimated actual and reasonable expenses" of reproduction and set a statutory schedule of maximum copy/search/delivery fees.
- Plaintiffs alleged MRO failed to disclose or charge its actual and reasonable reproduction costs and instead billed the MRA ceiling rates, yielding profits in excess of actual costs; they asserted breach of contract and sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The trial court held the MRA requires reproducers to disclose estimated actual and reasonable expenses and to limit charges to those expenses or the statutory caps, whichever is less; it certified that issue for interlocutory appeal.
- A divided Superior Court reversed, reading the statutory schedule as a per se safe-harbor rate that reproducers may charge (at least for paper copies), and held plaintiffs’ claims concerning non-paper copies were barred by voluntary-payment/prior-approval defenses; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court: it held the MRA requires disclosure of estimated actual and reasonable reproduction expenses and limits charges to those expenses subject to the statutory ceiling; it vacated the Superior Court’s decision on voluntary-payment/prior-approval defenses and remanded for the trial court to address those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MRA requires reproducers to disclose estimated actual and reasonable reproduction expenses and limit charges to those expenses or statutory caps | MRA’s text (6152(a)(1) and (a)(2)(i)) mandates disclosure of estimated actual and reasonable expenses and charges must be the lesser of those expenses or the statutory ceiling | The statute created a uniform pricing schedule; reproducers may charge the statutory rates (safe harbor) without calculating actual costs; "expenses" refers to amounts the requestor will pay under schedule | Court held MRA requires disclosure of estimated actual and reasonable expenses and limits charges to those expenses subject to the statutory caps; reversed Superior Court and reinstated trial court’s construction |
| Whether Liss controls interpretation of the MRA here | Liss did not decide this question; it concerned which of two rates applied (paper vs. microfilm) and did not adopt a universal safe-harbor rule | MRO argued Liss shows the pricing schedule governs and reproducers can always charge statutory rates | Court found Liss not dispositive and declined to apply it to eliminate statutory-text analysis |
| Applicability of Section 6152 constraints when records are requested by patient/agent under §6155(b) (not by subpoena) | §6155(b) incorporates §6152(a)(2)(i)’s amounts and thus subjects patient/requests to the same ‘‘actual expenses subject to cap’’ scheme | MRO argued §6155(b) refers only to the pricing schedule amounts and permits charging the statutory caps | Court held §6155’s cross-reference incorporates §6152(a)(2)(i) including ‘‘such expenses’’ language — so patient requests are governed by the same actual-expense-with-cap framework |
| Whether appellate court could decide defenses (voluntary payment, prior approval) on interlocutory appeal | Plaintiffs: defenses were not decided or certified below; Superior Court should not have reached them | MRO: defenses were briefed and warranted disposition | Court held Superior Court exceeded scope of interlocutory certification by deciding those defenses; vacated that portion and remanded for trial court consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Liss & Marion, P.C. v. Recordex Acquisition Corp., 603 Pa. 198, 983 A.2d 652 (Pa. 2009) (addressed which statutory copying rate applied — paper vs microfilm — but did not resolve whether reproducers are limited to actual costs)
- Wayne M. Chiurazzi Law, Inc. v. MRO Corp., 27 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Superior Court panel decision holding statutory schedule is a safe-harbor rate and affirming dismissal on that basis)
- In re Kennedy’s Estate, 321 Pa. 225, 183 A. 798 (Pa. 1936) (articulates the voluntary-payment doctrine applied by parties)