Franco et al v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al
Filing
113
ORDER AND OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff's Motion for Transcription of Medical Records Created by the Defendant Rosalina Gonzales 109 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 26 June, 2015 11:46:57 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LAURA BRITO, Independent )
Administrator of the Estate of
Alfonso Franco, deceased,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 14-cv-3282
ORDER AND OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcription of Medical Records
Created by the Defendant Rosalina Gonzales (d/e 109) (Motion) and the
Response to the Motion (d/e 111) filed by counsel representing Rosalina
Gonzales.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has filed a 42-count Amended Complaint alleging constitutional
violations and common law tort claims against various defendants for events that
occurred at Taylorville Correctional Center where the Plaintiff’s decedent Alfonso
1
Franco (Franco) was incarcerated. The Plaintiff alleges inadequate medical
care which led to the death of Franco.
Defendant Dr. Rosalina Gonzales (Gonzales) currently resides in the
Philippines. On June 11, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to confer and
select a date and method for taking the deposition of Gonzales in the Philippines.
The Motion indicates that Gonzales created medical records relating to the
treatment of Franco which are contained in sealed exhibit (d/e 77). Docket #77
has been reviewed by the Court and it consists of 260 pages of medical records
some of which were prepared by Gonzales. Plaintiff alleges that portions of the
medical records are handwritten and are often illegible. Plaintiff requests the
Court to order Gonzales to prepare a typewritten transcription of her medical
records verified by an affidavit executed by Gonzales stating that the
transcription comprehensively covers all records created regarding Franco and is
accurate and complete. Counsel for Gonzales objects to the motion.
ORDER
Rule 7.1(B) of the Local Rules of the Central District of Illinois provides that
every motion raising a question of law . . . must include a memorandum of law
including a brief statement of the specific points or propositions, law, and
supporting authorities upon which the moving party relies and identify the rule
2
under which the motion is filed. Plaintiff’s Motion does not comply with the Local
Rule.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide multiple avenues through
which a party can seek information which include depositions by oral
examination (Rule 30), depositions by written question (Rule 31), and
interrogatories (Rule 34). The issue raised by the Plaintiff with regard to the
medical records can be resolved through the use of any of these means of
discovery. The Plaintiff apparently has not used any of these discovery devices
to try to obtain the information she seeks under her Motion regarding the legibility
of the medical records.
In the experience of the Court, it is not unusual to encounter medical
records with handwritten notations that are difficult to decipher. To permit a
party to require that the medical provider must provide a written transcription of
the medical records under oath with a statement that the transcription
comprehensively covers all records created by the provider and is accurate and
complete would be both unnecessarily duplicative of the existing discovery
procedures set forth above and unduly burdensome to the provider.
3
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Transcription of
Medical Records Created by the Defendant Rosalina Gonzales (d/e 109) is
DENIED.
ENTERED: June 26, 2015
_____s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins_______
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?