Records Search Fee: Hollabaugh v. MRO 2
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog explores Maryland appellate opinions in personal injury cases that also raise issues pertinent to medical malpractice cases. In this post, I dissect the Maryland Supreme Court decision in Hollabaugh v. MRO Corp., No. 27, July 10, 2025. Specifically, I examine the holding that medical records companies cannot charge a fee for an unsuccessful search.
Factual Background
This case concerns the Confidentiality of Medical Records Act, Md. Code Ann., Health – Gen., section 4-301 et seq. One of the provisions specifically allows health care providers to charge a preparation fee. That fee cannot exceed $22.88 for “retrieval and preparation” of medical records. This case is a class action lawsuit. It challenges the charging of a fee for a search that does not result in the production of any medical records. (Op. at 1).
The plaintiff in this case had authorized her attorney to request her medical records from a health care provider for use in a personal injury claim. That provider contracted with the defendant to handle the request. (Id.).
The defendant then reported that it had located no records. Afterward, it generated a “cancellation invoice,” charging $22.88 for “searching for her medical records.” The attorney paid the fee, and then the plaintiff reimbursed him. (Id. at 1-2).
The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The judge found that section 4-304(c) authorizes a fee for searches that do not result in the production of records. The circuit court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because her attorney had made the record request. The plaintiff appealed. (Id. at 2-3).
The Appellate Court then affirmed. You can read a post on that decision: Medical Records Cost: Hollabaugh v. MRO
Maryland Supreme Court on No Fee for Unsuccessful Medical Records Searches
Section 4-304 allows explicitly an attorney appointed in writing to request medical records on behalf of a client. (Id. at 4). Section 4-309(f) authorizes a cause of action by someone injured by a knowing violation of the Act to recover actual damages. (Id. at 8). At the motion to dismiss stage, a reasonable inference from the plaintiff’s allegations was that she was required to reimburse her lawyer for the defendant’s fee. The court found this sufficient for standing. (Id. at 9).
The Supreme Court also found notable that the Act presupposes the existence of records. (Id. at 11). In addition, section 4-304 and its subsections contemplate the existence of records. There are several types of fees allowed, and all of the referenced actions require actual medical records. The defendant cannot perform actions (such as retrieving and preparing) with non-existent medical records (Id. at 12). The ordinary meaning of those words implies the existence of something that can be retrieved and prepared. (Id. at 13). Here, the very thing to be retrieved and prepared was absent. (Id. at 13).
Moreover, it is significant that the Act does not provide a fee for a records search, unsuccessful or not. The Supreme Court was unwilling to assume that the General Assembly intended to authorize a fee for an act not mentioned in the statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant could not charge the fee for an unsuccessful search. (Id. at 14-15).
In addition, the Supreme Court stated that it would not disturb the General Assembly’s balancing of interests. The defendant’s policy argument that it should be allowed to charge for unsuccessful searches is for the legislature, not the court. (Id. at 20).
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on No Fee for Unsuccessful Medical Record Searches
As I stated in the prior post on the Appellate Court decision, this rationale and outcome are correct. On the standing issue, the plaintiff could have made the Supreme Court’s job easier by alleging facts concerning the plaintiff’s legal obligation to reimburse her lawyer for the expense at issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that that fact was a reasonable inference. That aligns with general personal injury legal practice, and people typically do not pay for something like this unless they are obligated to.
The Supreme Court’s application of the plain language, which does not provide for a fee for unsuccessful searches, is a testament to the fairness of the legal system. In doing so, it overturned the unfortunate reasoning to the contrary by the Appellate Court.
This case is an excellent example of the need for class-action lawsuits. The plaintiff could not challenge a $22 fee cost-effectively in a lawsuit. This case also highlights the importance of legal representation in such matters, as it can significantly impact the outcome of a case and the ability of individuals to seek justice.
Even with the option of a class action, the defendant placed the plaintiffs in a position they should not have been. If a plaintiff refused to pay the charge, the company could refuse to do business with the plaintiff in that case and future ones, effectively preventing the plaintiff from pursuing a claim. In addition, the company could report the plaintiff to the credit bureaus. Fortunately, the plaintiff’s investment in a class action case avoided these inequitable outcomes.
To the General Assembly
The next step will be lobbying in the General Assembly. Whether the General Assembly modifies the statute to allow a fee for unsuccessful records searches is beside the point. The point here is that the Supreme Court did its job by applying the statute using the plain language in a way a reasonable person would expect. This decision also sets a precedent for future medical malpractice cases, ensuring that companies do not unfairly charge patients for unsuccessful searches.
You can read more about the role of medical records in medical malpractice cases in the litigation process webpages on this website.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.