Thornburg

Thornburg v. Superior Court

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 43·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 446·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3781·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 156·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2700
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2006D045247California4,021 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Real party in interest Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc. (Bactes), entered into an agreement with a hospital under which Bactes agreed to respond to patient requests for copies of their medical records. Under the terms of the agreement, upon receipt of a records request from a patient the hospital agreed to provide the patient’s records to Bactes and Bactes agreed to make copies of the records and provide the copies to the patient or his or her attorney.

By its express terms, Evidence Code section 1158 limits the amount health care providers may charge for copying patient records and providing them to attorneys retained by patients. Under the terms of its agreement with the hospital, Bactes had the obligation of responding to section 1158 requests and is therefore subject to the limitations of the statute. Accordingly, the trial court erred in sustaining without leave to amend Bactes’s demurrer to two causes of action which alleged Bactes violated the statute.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2001 Bactes entered into a contract with El Centro Regional Medical Center (the hospital) to provide copy services for the hospital. The agreement provided the hospital…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.