Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s EMR

Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s EMR

On October 13, 2015, and August 7, 2015, Newport News Circuit Court entered companion EMR Orders sought by Mr. Waterman, which are believed to be the most progressive and the most comprehensive ones for patient electronic medical records in Virginia. Both are in the wrongful death case of Joanne T. Rauchfuss, Administratrix of the Estate of George William Rauchfuss, Jr., Deceased v. Roger E. Schultz, M.D., Hampton Roads Urology, Riverside Physician Services, Inc., Riverside Medical Group, Benjamin J. Pettus, M.D., Peninsula Radiological Associates, LTD., Riverside Diagnostic Center – Williamsburg, Riverside Hospital, Inc., Riverside Health System, and Riverside Healthcare Association, Inc., No. CL1302754V-04(DP); in which Riverside Defendants’ successfully precluded dissemination of the first Order until entry of the second Order.

The initial 4/29/15 Hearing EMR Order in the Rauchfuss medical malpractice lawsuit requires Riverside Defendants to provide inter alia: (1) Plaintiff’s counsel and his IT personnel on-site read-only access to the patient’s electronic medical records, in addition to the USBs of the patient’s electronic medical records produced; and (2) Plaintiff’s counsel additional detail, information and/or data requested about the USBs contents. Further, that Rauchfuss Order requires Riverside Defendants to provide Plaintiff’s counsel for various dates: (a) the “data dictionary” for all audit trails and metadata; (b) all “edit” metadata; (c) all “Link Logic” metadata; (d) all warning pop-ups, built-in alerts, other overrides, etc. for their myHealth eLink and/or GE Centricity systems; and (e) all “differential diagnoses” drop-downs for GE Centricity or otherwise.

The 8/7/15 Hearing Supplemental EMR Order in the Rauchfuss wrongful death suit: (1) denied Riverside Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider [4/29/15] Ruling on Data Dictionaries; and (2) ordered Riverside Defendants to provide Plaintiff’s counsel (a) all of their GE Centricity data dictionaries in IT-created read-only electronic files in USBs, (b) all of their directions, instructions, guides, keys, handbooks, summaries, explanations and/or the like for their GE Centricity data dictionaries in USBs and/or paper copies, and (c) on-site read-only access to their GE Centricity data dictionaries with Plaintiff’s IT personnel present. Only this latter Rauchfuss Order is subject to protective order sought by Riverside Defendants, based on the GE Centricity data dictionaries and related materials being “proprietary” to GE under its user agreement with Riverside Defendants.

THE VIRGINIA STATE BAR REQUIRES ALL LAWYERS TO POST THE FOLLOWING DISCLAIMERS ON ALL CASE-RELATED POSTS. MR. WATERMAN’S CASE RESULTS AND CLIENT TESTIMONIALS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. THEY DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE BY HIM.