Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s EMR

Virginia: Medical Malpractice – a Lawyer’s EMR

On April 13, 2015, Newport News Circuit Court heard Defendant Riverside’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Entry of Order re Electronic Medical Records (“EMR”) in Mr. Waterman’s patient fall lawsuit, Peck v. Riverside Hospital, Inc., Riverside Healthcare Association, Inc., Sunny Freeman, R.N., Connie Kim, N.P., and Mallory Rusk, R.N., Case No. CL1400873V-04. The Judge denied Riverside’s Motion for Sanctions re Plaintiff patient filing and withdrawing Motion for Rule to Show Cause and Contempt Sanctions.

More significantly, the Judge in the Peck medical malpractice suit granted in part and denied in part Riverside’s Motion for Entry of Order re Electronic Medical Records, ordering the following as supplement to (versus as replacement of) the USBs production of the patient’s electronic medical record by Riverside per 6/23/14 “Privilege” Hearing Order:

  1. Patient by counsel is allowed direct “read only” on-site access to patient’s entire electronic medical record in its native form and format at Riverside Hospital, Inc. by arrangement with Riverside to view and/or to print data that the patient’s counsel deems relevant. Riverside’s counsel may be present to observe that patient’s counsel does not access any electronic medical record of any patient other than Plaintiff at bar. After any such viewing and/or printing by patient’s counsel, to the extent possible, Riverside’s IT personnel shall delete the history of patient’s counsel inspection, viewing and/or printing. Riverside is entitled to charge patient for the print cost alone.
  1. Additionally, if patient specifically requests additional data and/or details about Riverside’s USBs production, Riverside shall provide such additional information and/or data requested. Re requested data, Riverside shall provide a reasonable number of documents, not unduly burdensome to it, and may charge patient for its printing cost alone. Re requested detail, Riverside shall provide the information requested, not respond patient already has it in USBs.
  1. If IT personnel for the parties can agree on a better way for access, production, etc.; then the Court will consider the same.

Notably, a similar Riverside EMR issue also is before another Judge in Newport News Circuit Court on April 29, 2015, in the alleged wrongful death medical malpractice case of Rauchfuss 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).