Delivery of medical records to third parties under the Health Information Technology for Economic & Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act); 42 USC §§ 17935(e)(1) & (3); Ciox Health, LLC v Azar (D DC); The 30-day requirement for delivery of documents; 45 CFR § 164.524(b)(2)(i); Preemption of the Michigan Medical Records Access Act (MRAA); In re Schultz; Fees a health care provider or medical records company may charge for medical record requests; MCL 333.26269(1), (2), & (6); “The Patient Rate”; Alleged withholding of medical records in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA); MCL 445.903(1)(n), (q), & (z); Slobin v Henry Ford Health Care

The court held that the HITECH Act’s 30-day requirement preempts the MRAA’s prepayment provision. But the trial court correctly applied state law in determining the proper fee defendant-medical records provider (MRO) could charge, although it erred when it found MRO charged plaintiff an appropriate fee. It also held that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s MCPA claim. Plaintiff sent a medical-record request to defendant-hospital, asking that the records be sent to his attorney. MRO handled the request and indicated to the attorney that it would charge a higher fee for records sent to a third party, and that prepayment was required. The attorney replied to MRO that it failed to provide the records within 30 days, and that it could not charge the higher fee. Plaintiff later sued defendants. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that defendants failed to comply with the 30-day requirement in the HITECH Act, noting they did not comply with either prong of § “164.524(b)(2)(i), which requires that a covered entity either grant the request and provide the access requested, . . . or deny the request and provide the individual with a written denial[.]” It also agreed with plaintiff that “the requirement that a request for records be granted or denied within 30 days under federal law is inconsistent with the language in MCL 333.26269(2) allowing health care providers or medical record companies to condition transmission of records on prepayment of the applicable fee.” Defendants failed to act on his request “within 30 days, as they were required to under the HITECH Act and related regulations, because they believed that MCL 333.26269(2) allowed them to withhold” the records until he paid the applicable fee. As that “prepayment provision conflicts with the 30-day requirement under the HITECH Act,” the MRAA’s prepayment provision is preempted. Next, while the trial court did not err by finding state law applied for purposes of determining the fee that could be imposed for providing copies of his records, it “erred in finding the fee charged based on pages printed was appropriate.” As to his MCPA claim, under “Slobin, when an individual seeks records for litigation purposes, a claim under the MCPA cannot be sustained.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.