Lawsuit claims bills for copying of medical records were padded

February, 2003

A class-action lawsuit filed last week is sure to grab the attention of Philadelphia’s personal injury lawyers because it accuses one of the area’s largest medical records copiers of routinely padding its bills by falsely claiming that the records had to be copied from microfilm.

Attorneys Alan M. Feldman and Thomas More Marrone of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter & Tanner filed the suit Friday in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Recordex Acquisition Corp. and Sourcecorp Inc.

Company officials at Recordex and Sourcecorp did not return calls on Friday. The case is McShane v. Recordex Acquisition Corp.

According to the suit, charges for copying medical records are regulated by the Pennsylvania Medical Records Act.

For copies from paper records, the law currently allows charges of $1.11 per page for the first 20 pages, 84 cents per page for the next 40 pages, and 29 cents per page for all remaining pages.

By contrast, the current charge for copies from microfilm are a flat $1.65 per page and do not decrease with volume.

In the lawsuit, Feldman and Marrone accuse Recordex of overbilling Karen and Timothy McShane, who had requested medical records for their deceased son and were charged $1.62 per page, by charging them the rate for microfilm copies in 2002.

The suit alleges that since the original paper charts and records for the McShanes’ son still existed at the time of the request, Recordex should have charged them the lower rate for paper copies.

Instead, the suit says, Recordex “transferred the medical records and charts onto a medium other than paper, then made copies from that other medium, and then charged plaintiffs the ‘microfilm’ rate.

The suit alleges that “this is defendants’ standard practice.”

The $203.15 invoice sent to the McShanes for the 113 pages of records they requested from St. Christopher’s Hospital stated that “prepayment” was required, meaning that the records would not be released until payment was received, according to the suit. The couple were billed for a records search and postage and handling

If the correct charges had been applied, the suit alleges, the bill would have been $80.24, plus postage and handling.

The suit was filed on behalf of anyone who has paid an invoice from Recordex “setting forth a charge for copy from microfilm rather than the charge for a copy from paper where a paper original existed or by law should have existed.”

Recordex is accused in the suit of violating the Medical Records Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.