Findling v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc.

998 N.W.2d 1

William FINDLING, et al., Appellants,

v.GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC., d/b/a

Health Partners and Regions Hospital, Respondent (A21-1518),

Essentia Health, et al., Respondents (A21-1527),

Fairview Health Services, et al., Respondents (A21-1528),

Allina Health Systems, Respondent (A21-1530).

A21-1518

A21-1527

A21-1528

A21-1530

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: December 6, 2023

Syllabus by the Court

1. An individual may bring a private action under the Minnesota private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2022), to compel a healthcare provider to disclose that individual’s medical records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act under Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5 (2022).

2. An individual does not have a private right of action under the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 144.651 (2022), to compel a healthcare provider to disclose an individual’s medical records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act under Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5.

————

Court of Appeals

Brandon Thompson, Barry M. Landy, Rachel L. Barrett, Jacob F. Siegel, Ciresi Conlin LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

Anthony J. Novak, Patrick H. O’Neill III, Larson King, LLP, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondents Group Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Health Partners and Regions Hospital.

David A. Schooler, Gordon & Rees, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Andrew McCarty, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, New York, for respondents Essentia Health and Innovis Health, LLC.

Gregory E. Karpenko, Anupama D. Sreekanth, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents Fairview Health Services and HealthEast Care System.

Mark R. Bradford, Bradford, Andresen, Nome & Camarotto, Bloomington, Minnesota, for respondent Allina Health System.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Adam Welle, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General.

Patrick Stoneking, Jeff Anderson & Associates PA, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association for Justice.

OPINION

THISSEN, Justice.

Appellants in these consolidated appeals are four individual patients (the Patients) who made written requests for medical records from their healthcare providers, the respondents in this case (the Providers). The Minnesota Health Records Act requires that, upon a patient’s written request, a healthcare provider "shall furnish" a patient’s medical records to the patient within 30 calendar days of receiving the written request. Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5 (2022). The Providers’ responses varied, but none of them met the 30-day deadline for furnishing a complete copy of requested records.

The Patients sued the Providers under the Minnesota private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2022), and the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 144.651 (2022), alleging that the Providers had a pattern of failing to meet the 30-day deadline. The Patients sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the Providers to meet their statutory obligation. The district court granted the Providers’ motion to dismiss, reasoning that the Patients could not bring a private right of action for a violation of section 144.292, subdivision 5, under either the private attorney general statute or the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights. The court of appeals affirmed.

We are asked to decide a very narrow issue: May an individual bring a private right of action under the private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, or the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 144.651, to compel a healthcare provider to disclose that individual’s medical records within 30 days of a request for those records as required by the Minnesota Health Records Act? We hold that a patient has a private right of action under section 8.31, subdivision 3a, for the late disclosure of health records and so reverse on that issue. We agree with the distinct court and court of appeals, however, that the Patients do not have a private right of action under the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of claims brought under the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, reverse the court of appeals’ dismissal of claims brought under the private attorney general statute, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

FACTS

This case comes to us following the district court’s decision granting the Providers’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we accept the allegations set forth in the Patients’ complaint, as well as all inferences to be drawn from those allegations, in the light most favorable to the Patients. Hansen V. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 934 N.W.2d 319, 325 (Minn. 2019).

The Patients each alleged that they suffered serious medical complications following procedures by their Provider and suspected malpractice. Each Patient requested medical records from their Providers. The Patients allege that the individual Providers failed to fully disclose their health records within the 30-day time period set forth in the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minn. Stat. § 144.292, subd. 5.¹

The Patients each brought a lawsuit as individuals and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated patients, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Patients claim that the Providers improperly withheld their medical records and, as part of their failure to disclose the records, the Providers made false representations to the Patients to justify their non-compliance with the requests. Further, each of the Patients’ complaints allege that each Provider’s failure to timely disclose patient records in accordance with the Minnesota Health Records Act is a widespread, pervasive, or systematic practice.

The Patients asserted that they could sue the Providers under the private attorney general provision of Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, and the Minnesota Health Care Bill of Rights, Minn. Stat. § 144.651.² The district court disagreed and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that "neither the private attorney general provision nor the Health Care Bill of Rights provide a private right of action to patients for underdisclosure of health records." Findling v. Grp. Health Plan, Inc., 979 N.W.2d 234, 236 (Minn. App. 2022).

We granted review on two issues: (1) whether the Minnesota private attorney general statute, section 8.31, subdivision 3a, authorizes a civil action for a health system’s violation of its obligation under the Minnesota Health Records Act to provide a patient’s medical records within 30 days of a request; and (2) whether the Health Care Bill of Rights, section 144.651, creates a private right of action to enforce a health system’s violation of its obligation under the Minnesota Health Records Act to provide Patients’ medical records within 30 days of a request.

ANALYSIS

I.

[1] We first address the Patients’ claim that the Minnesota private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, authorizes a private right of action to compel a healthcare provider to timely disclose a patient’s health records in accordance with the Minnesota Health Records Act. Whether a statute creates a private right of action under section 8.31 is a question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. Becker v. Mayo Found., 737 N.W.2d 200, 207 (Minn. 2007).

A.

Section 8.31 provides the Attorney General with broad enforcement authority concerning "violations of the law of this state respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade." Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (2022); see also subds. 2, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3 (2022); see generally State v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc., 935 N.W.2d 124, 133-34 (Minn. 2019) (noting that section 8.31, subdivision 3, "broadly authorizes the Attorney General to seek equitable relief to stop conduct that harms consumers"). Section 8.31, subdivision 1, which sets forth the scope of the Attorney General’s authority, provides in full:

The attorney general shall investigate violations of the law of this state respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade, and specifically, but not exclusively, the Nonprofit Corporation Act (sections 317A.001 to 317A.909), the Act Against Unfair Discrimination and Competition (sections 325D.01 to 325D.07), the Unlawful Trade Practices Act (sections 325D.09 to 325D.16), the Antitrust Act (sections 325D.49 to 325D.66), section 325F.67 and other laws against false or fraudulent advertising, the antidiscrimination acts contained in section 325D.67, the act against monopolization of food products (section 325D.68), the act regulating telephone advertising services (section 325E.39), the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (sections 325F.68 to 325F.70), and chapter 53A regulating currency exchanges and assist in the enforcement of those laws as in this section provided.

Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Attorney General’s investigatory and enforcement power reaches all laws "respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade." Id. The list of 10 specific laws following the broad grant of authority is not exclusive. Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1; see Morris v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 1986) ("[T]he list of laws set out in subdivision 1 is not intended to be exclusive.").³

[2] Subdivision 3a states:

In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of any of the laws referred to in subdivision 1 may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court.

Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (emphasis added). The plain...