The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision today (click here to see it) in which a patient of Gold Cross Ambulance sued Gold Cross for charging her $10 per page for a copy of her medical records.  Dianna Espinoza wrote to Gold Cross and requested a copy of her medical records.  The records were only three pages.  She asked that Gold Cross mail them directly to her attorney.  Gold Cross agreed but insisted on being paid $30 to release the records.  Espinoza sued claiming that the fees were excessive.

Espinoza pointed out that under medicaid laws, a health care provider can charge no more than 12 cents per page plus postage.  She estimated the fair amount to charge was 75 cents.  Espinoza also pointed out that a federal law, commonly referred to as HIPAA, limited health care providers to charge no more than the actual cost of copying plus postage when a patient requests records.

Gold Cross argued that it could charge whatever it wanted to charge.  Gold Cross did concede that if Espinoza had requested that the records be mailed to her Gold Cross would have charged nothing.  Because they were going to an attorney, Gold Cross charged $10 per page.

The Utah Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Gold Cross.  The Appellate Court held that HIPAA does limit the amount a health care provider can charge to the actual cost of copying.  However, when HIPAA was enacted, congress did not give patients the right to sue for violating this particular provision of HIPAA.  Further, Utah State law did not place any limit on how much a health care provider can charge for medical records.

Walmart is pulling jewelry from its shelves because it contains cadmium.  For the full story click here.  These types of stories are all too common.  A product is manufactured in such a way that it is dangerous to the consumer.  Frequently, the products come from China.  In addition to the cadmium in jewelry, we’ve also read about drywall that emits poisonous gas, children’s toys painted with lead paint.

The obvious question is why is this happening more and more frequently. Recent tort reform measures share some of the blame.  The tort reform was pushed by retailers because they felt that they should not be responsible for guaranteeing the safety of products they did not manufacture.

For over a century, retailers were legally required to stand behind the products they sold.  If a manufacturer made a dangerous product and a consumer was injured, not only was the manufacturer required to stand behind the product, so was the retailer.  In the past, retailers protected themselves in several ways.  First, they dealt with reputable manufacturers.  Second, they signed contracts with manufacturers requiring the manufacturer to reimburse the retailer if the retailer was forced to pay a personal injury claim.  Third, they purchased insurance.

So long as retailers only purchased products from reputable manufacturers, the retailer bore little if any risk.  This system of law persisted through the rise of the U.S.’s industrial might. 

Recently, many State’s have passed statutes that let retailers off the hook for injuries caused by defective products.  These changes are commonly referred to as tort reform.  Utah is one of those states.  Utah’s version is called the Liability Reform Act.

In Utah, a retailer need no longer stand behind products so long as the  retailer is blissfully unaware of any defects with the product.  In other words, if the retailer is not familiar with the quality of the manufacturer and does no testing, the retailer cannot be sued.

The Utah legislature has encouraged retailers to bury their heads in the sand and the retailers have faithfully followed that suggestion.

At the same time, many foreign manufacturers started vying for a piece of the U.S. market.  Some of those foreign manufacturers are effectively immune from lawsuits in the U.S..  That’s because their governments will not cooperate in personal injury lawsuits.  China is one of the biggest culprits. 

Because Chinese manufacturers have little risk of paying a personal injury judgment, they can manufacture goods more cheaply than U.S. firms.  The U.S. firms must implement safety protocols, use quality materials, purchase their materials from reputable suppliers, implement product testing and even purchase insurance in case they make a mistake.  The Chinese firms do not face any of those costs.

The result has been that the Chinese manufacturers can frequently underbid the U.S. manufacturers.  Since the retailers need not stand behind the product, the retailers too frequently go with the lowest bid and purchase the goods from overseas.  Unfortunately, Utah’s Liability Reform Act has driven jobs overseas and imperiled Utah consumers.

The U.S. Congress is now considering legislation that will help U.S. manufacturers.  It is considering legislation that would allow foreign manufacturers to be sued in the U.S.

The Utah legislature could also help.  It could repeal the Liability Reform Act.  Sadly, the Liability Reform Act has driven jobs out of the U.S. while simultaneously making products more dangerous.  It should be repealed.

In Waters v. Powell, the Utah Court of Appeals denied a woman’s claims for injuries she received when she was bit by a dog.    In March 2005, Steven Powell took his dog, named Snoop, to be boarded at a kennel managed by Alexis Waters.  While the dog was being boarded, Waters took Snoop out of his kennel to introduce Snoop to some other dogs.  When it became apparent that the meeting wasn’t going to be friendly, Waters attempted to restrain Snoop and Snoop bit Waters.

In Utah, a dog owner is strictly liable for dog bites.  In other words, the victim of the bite need not prove negligence.  If you get bit, you win.  In this case, however, the Court of Appeals held that because Waters was housing the dog, feeding the dog, caring for the dog, and doing the other things that owners and keepers of dogs normally do, strict liability would not be applied.

The Court of Appeals threw out Water’s case.  For now, Snoop and his owner Steven Powell are out of the dog house.

The Daily Herald reported that Michael Scott Hall, age 19 from American Fork, has been charged with woyeurism.  He is accused of hiding a camera in a women’s restroom at his place of work.  He used the camera to take pictures of women using the restroom.

Utah criminal laws make such actions a crime.  If convicted, Michael Scott Hall could face jail time and fines.  Utah law also gives victims of such crimes the right to be compensated with money.  Utah has long recognized the civil claim of invasion of privacy.  When an individual “intrudes upon the seclusion” of another, that individual may be required by a court to pay money to the victim.