{ "metadata": { "title": "EMRCheck EHR Evidence Research Library", "version": "1.2", "researchDate": "2026-11-05", "timezone": "America/New_York", "purpose": "Source-traceable research for plaintiff-side medical record, audit-trail, and vendor-related litigation analysis.", "scope": "California foundations and selected nationwide materials, with malpractice/records, vendor litigation, other records litigation, and nonjudicial sources separated. Version 1.2 verifies the Connecticut state discovery/appeal chain and the exact Anand suppression docket disposition; see explicit source and history labels.", "priorityPlatforms": [ "ModMed", "Cerner", "Epic", "DrChrono" ], "sourcePolicy": [ "A judicial holding is summarized only when the relevant opinion or order text has been read.", "Named EHR tags require express identification in a reviewed primary source. If the brand appears only in a party pleading, that is labeled; brand identification does not validate alleged features.", "Government allegations and settlements are separated from adjudicated findings.", "Vendor documents describe documented capabilities; historical version and facility applicability remain open.", "Short quotations provide a checkable anchor; open the original source to review context.", "Known adverse outcomes, procedural limits, unpublished status, and later history are recorded.", "Reviewed does not mean citator-cleared. Complete subsequent history, applicable citation rules, and current docket status require counsel review.", "Selected original court PDFs are preserved under sources with a SHA-256 manifest. Other originals remain linked. Copies are unaltered downloads, not certified court copies.", "No private client file or privileged material was supplied or used; public-source summaries omit unnecessary patient detail.", "Original-ruling verification and later-history review are separate fields. A targeted history search is not citator clearance, and lack of a search hit is not proof of no appeal.", "Docket-only records verify the text of a docketed disposition, not unread reasoning. They are excluded from judicial-decision counts.", "A procedural dismissal of an appeal is not a merits affirmance. Party notices of compliance are not court findings of complete production." ], "citationRules": [ { "label": "California Rule of Court 8.1115", "url": "https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_1115", "note": "California unpublished appellate opinions generally cannot be cited, subject to exceptions. Other jurisdictions have different rules." } ], "gaps": [ "No DrChrono malpractice-liability or vendor-defect judgment verified. Connecticut state records orders are now verified, including metadata requests and search documentation, but the DrChrono identification comes from a related federal complaint, not the state orders. PA-001 is criminal post-conviction discovery.", "No ModMed-specific malpractice audit-trail holding verified. ModMed material includes commercial/vendor rulings, privilege, enforcement, technical documentation, and a pending proposed data-breach settlement.", "Current complete dockets and comprehensive citators were not available for every matter. Targeted checks and explicit gaps appear in new records; earlier records remain source-reviewed without comprehensive later-history clearance.", "Lowe has a verified March 2023 post-remand order, but no verified final outcome. Tahoe’s Florida post-transfer merits outcome is also unverified.", "Cavallaro-Kearins remains pending final approval per the administrator as viewed Nov. 5, 2026; the signed preliminary approval order was not retrieved.", "Not exhaustive. Public indexing omits sealed, unpublished, unreported, paid-docket, and state trial materials.", "Anand ECF 427 is located by exact docket entry and official retrieval URL; its original PDF is not available in RECAP and requires PACER sign-in. Its suppression reasoning remains unverified under the free-source constraint.", "Connecticut official trial/appellate dockets were reviewed Nov. 5, 2026; no certification petition is listed in the displayed appeal field. No subsequent judicial finding of complete production or comprehensive negative-treatment citator clearance was verified." ], "nextResearch": [ "Monitor free public sources for Anand ECF 427, any accompanying reasoning/hearing transcript, and freely released appendices in criminal appeals 25-2804/25-2902. Exact court retrieval identifiers are in PA-002.", "Track further official activity in Connecticut FST-CV24-6068091-S and AC 49493. Verify actual compliance, later modifications, and any separate review without treating a party notice as a court finding.", "Check full current Valley Eye and Tahoe Florida dockets and any appeals; retrieve Cavallaro-Kearins signed approval orders after the scheduled hearing when available.", "Complete Lowe’s post-March-2023 docket history and any final judgment or settlement.", "Expand ModMed/EMA/gGastro and DrChrono historical-name searches in state trial dockets. Verify product/entity relationships before assigning aliases.", "Brief Gilbert, Heinrich, and Worthy and trace later citing decisions, preserving favorable and adverse results.", "Before client-specific use, match product, version, institution, configuration, treatment period, and applicable discovery/citation rules." ], "researchConstraint": "Free public sources only, per user instruction on Nov. 5, 2026. No PACER purchase, paid citator, or authenticated subscription retrieval." }, "records": [ { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-001", "title": "Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (Bowyer)", "citation": "18 Cal.4th 1 (1998)", "date": "1998-05-11", "court": "California Supreme Court", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "No EHR brand identified in the reviewed passages; paper-era records", "topics": [ "Spoliation", "Missing records", "Remedies" ], "authority": "Published state supreme court opinion", "direction": "Limiting", "facts": "A birth-injury plaintiff alleged destruction of medical records, including fetal monitoring strips.", "holding": "Rejected a separate tort for intentional first-party spoliation discovered, or reasonably discoverable, before the underlying litigation ended; discussed existing litigation remedies.", "application": "Organize evidence of loss for counsel to assess remedies within the underlying action.", "limits": "Does not automatically establish destruction, entitlement to sanctions, or a separate damages claim.", "locator": "Opinion opening holding; sections II and III addressing alternative remedies", "quote": "existing and effective nontort remedies", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/18/1.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-002", "title": "Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court", "citation": "91 Cal.App.5th 1121 (2023)", "date": "2023-05-24", "court": "California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Not an EHR case; electronic video evidence", "topics": [ "Preservation", "Spoliation", "Sanctions" ], "authority": "Published appellate opinion following rehearing", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "The ESI safe harbor does not protect destruction after a preservation duty arises. Reasonable foreseeability means litigation is probable and likely, not merely possible; sanctions required reconsideration.", "application": "Build a dated preservation chronology rather than inferring a duty solely from an adverse medical event.", "limits": "School video dispute; application to medical data requires the facts and applicable procedural rules.", "locator": "Opinion opening holding and preservation-duty analysis", "quote": "probable and likely to arise from an incident or dispute and not a mere possibility", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion following rehearing", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/e078673a.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-003", "title": "Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.", "citation": "230 Cal.App.4th 35 (2014)", "date": "2014-08-27", "court": "California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Not an EHR case; student-loan database", "topics": [ "Usable exports", "Nonparty discovery", "Burden" ], "authority": "Published appellate opinion; publication ordered September 26, 2014", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Upheld a fee award after an unsuccessful motion to quash an ESI subpoena seeking specified database fields in usable form; explained translation obligations and burden protections.", "application": "Help counsel specify existing data fields and usable exports with a concrete burden estimate.", "limits": "Nonparty subpoena under California section 1985.8; does not require every requested format regardless of cost.", "locator": "Discussion A, Discovery of Electronically Stored Information; Discussion B", "quote": "translate any data compilations included in the subpoena into a reasonably usable form", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1679250.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by FindLaw" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-004", "title": "People v. Goldsmith", "citation": "59 Cal.4th 258 (2014)", "date": "2014-06-05", "court": "California Supreme Court", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Not an EHR case; automated traffic camera", "topics": [ "Authentication", "Machine-generated evidence", "Hearsay" ], "authority": "Published state supreme court opinion", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Upheld authentication of automated traffic-enforcement evidence; the entirely computer-produced evidence at issue was not a human statement and was not hearsay.", "application": "Distinguish machine-generated event data from human-entered clinical statements and establish what each exhibit represents.", "limits": "Does not make every EHR entry nonhearsay or automatically authenticate an audit export.", "locator": "Discussion of authentication and hearsay; opinion sections II and III", "quote": "not statements of a person", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2014/s201443.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-005", "title": "Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California", "citation": "55 Cal.4th 747 (2012)", "date": "2012-11-26", "court": "California Supreme Court", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Not an EHR case; lost-profits expert evidence", "topics": [ "Expert foundation", "Methodology", "Speculation" ], "authority": "Published state supreme court opinion", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Confirmed trial courts' gatekeeping duty to exclude speculative expert opinions and upheld exclusion of the lost-profits opinion at issue.", "application": "Explain the data, system behavior, assumptions, and reasoning connecting each technical observation to a conclusion.", "limits": "A qualification or credential alone does not supply the missing reasoning.", "locator": "Opening holding; Evidence Code sections 801 and 802 analysis", "quote": "exclude speculative expert testimony", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/sargon-v-univ-southern-cal-34179/", "type": "Judicial opinion reproduced by Stanford Law Library" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CA-006", "title": "Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc.", "citation": "114 Cal.App.4th 1108 (2003)", "date": "2003-12-11", "court": "California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "California foundation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "No EHR brand identified in reviewed passages", "topics": [ "Causation", "Expert foundation", "Medical malpractice" ], "authority": "Published appellate opinion; publication order January 8, 2004", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Upheld exclusion of an inadequately explained expert opinion connecting a retained surgical retractor with a particular infection.", "application": "Separate technical chronology conclusions from the clinical causation opinions a qualified medical expert must support.", "limits": "A documentation discrepancy alone does not establish injury causation.", "locator": "Discussion II A-C, expert opinions and causation", "quote": "expert opinion is worth no more than the reasons upon which it rests", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text with filing and publication dates", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2004/d040393.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-001", "title": "Vargas v. Lee", "citation": "170 A.D.3d 1073 (2019)", "date": "2019-03-20", "court": "New York Appellate Division, Second Department", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "EHR brand not identified in the reviewed opinion", "topics": [ "Audit trails", "Completeness", "Targeted discovery" ], "authority": "Published state appellate opinion; persuasive outside its jurisdiction", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Ordered a targeted postoperative audit trail where it bore on care timing and completeness of records; the hospital's conclusory burden explanation was insufficient.", "application": "Connect the requested date range and data to disputed treatment facts and demonstrated production gaps.", "limits": "Fact-specific New York discovery ruling, not a nationwide automatic entitlement.", "locator": "Final three substantive paragraphs, 170 A.D.3d at 1076-1077", "quote": "complete and unaltered", "sources": [ { "label": "Official opinion", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_02142.htm", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-002", "title": "Wright v. Stephens", "citation": "239 A.D.3d 1271 (2025)", "date": "2025-06-06", "court": "New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "EHR brand not identified in the reviewed opinion", "topics": [ "EMR expert", "Arrival time", "Treatment delay" ], "authority": "Published state appellate opinion; persuasive outside its jurisdiction", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Held exclusion of EMR expert testimony erroneous to the extent it could establish arrival time and a potentially significant treatment delay; granted a new trial with additional grounds.", "application": "Tie proposed testimony to a concrete timeline dispute instead of an unsupported general fraud theory.", "limits": "Did not establish every proposed opinion admissible or decide ultimate malpractice liability.", "locator": "Audit-trail and EMR-expert discussion, 239 A.D.3d at 1274-1275", "quote": "relevant and admissible", "sources": [ { "label": "Official opinion", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_03416.htm", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-003", "title": "Harms v. Lewis", "citation": "248 A.D.3d 1757; 2026 NY Slip Op 02550", "date": "2026-04-24", "court": "New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "EHR brand not identified in the reviewed opinion", "topics": [ "Audit trails", "New evidence", "Retention testimony" ], "authority": "Published state appellate opinion; persuasive outside its jurisdiction", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Affirmed further audit-trail discovery after depositions undermined earlier representations that data was unavailable.", "application": "Compare declarations with knowledgeable-witness testimony, system policies, and available data before requesting further relief.", "limits": "An earlier 2023 request failed on a different record; this was not a ruling that conjecture alone warrants production.", "locator": "Memorandum, discussion of new deposition evidence and second motion", "quote": "contradicted some of the central assertions in their affidavits", "history": "Earlier decision: Harms v. TLC Health Network, 215 A.D.3d 1295 (2023), discussed and distinguished in this opinion.", "sources": [ { "label": "Official 2026 opinion", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_02550.shtml", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" }, { "label": "Earlier 2023 opinion", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_02264.htm", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-004", "title": "Strauss v. Valkenburg", "citation": "227 A.D.3d 1118 (2024)", "date": "2024-05-29", "court": "New York Appellate Division, Second Department", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "EHR brand not identified in the reviewed opinion", "topics": [ "Direct extraction", "Burden", "Prior production" ], "authority": "Published state appellate opinion; persuasive outside its jurisdiction", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Affirmed denial of a request for the plaintiff's expert to extract metadata directly after multiple responsive productions under court supervision.", "application": "Identify what remains missing after prior productions before proposing an inspection or extraction.", "limits": "Does not categorically prohibit direct inspections; the production history mattered.", "locator": "Entire short opinion; final substantive paragraph", "quote": "three rounds of responsive material", "sources": [ { "label": "Official opinion", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_02944.htm", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "IL-001", "title": "Burnette v. Nockels", "citation": "2025 IL App (1st) 240485", "date": "2025-12-18", "court": "Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Fourth Division", "jurisdiction": "Illinois", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic" ], "platformStatus": "Epic expressly named in the technical consultant's account of the production, paragraph 6", "topics": [ "Audit trails", "Expert affidavit", "Supervised extraction", "HIPAA" ], "authority": "Published state appellate opinion; persuasive outside its jurisdiction", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Affirmed an order allowing consultant-supervised audit extraction under discovery rules; vacated friendly contempt. Supported concerns about filtered data and limited burden justified the ruling.", "application": "Prepare a supported declaration identifying missing event types, incomplete scope, and a bounded inspection proposal.", "limits": "Did not hold that HIPAA patient-access rights themselves compel audit-trail disclosure; inspection safeguards remained to be set.", "locator": "Paragraphs 6 and 14-20", "quote": "the trial court reasonably relied on the unrebutted affidavits of Burnette’s technical consultant", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2025/1-24-0485.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "IL-002", "title": "Meherg v. Rush University Medical Center", "citation": "2025 IL App (1st) 231102-U", "date": "2025-05-29", "court": "Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Fourth Division", "jurisdiction": "Illinois", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic", "Cerner" ], "platformStatus": "Both expressly named; paragraphs 55-56 discuss unproduced Cerner records beyond Epic", "topics": [ "Multiple systems", "Revision history", "Access versus changes", "Contempt" ], "authority": "Rule 23 order; nonprecedential except limited Rule 23 circumstances; citation conditions require counsel review", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Vacated contempt: revision data and two disputed records had been produced. Separately upheld the finding of a discovery violation for unproduced Cerner records, which did not support contempt at that stage.", "application": "Distinguish access logs from revision histories and inventory responsive records across more than one system.", "limits": "Not a blanket plaintiff victory; the original sanctions order was not before the appellate court.", "locator": "Paragraphs 7-10, 40-46, and 55-63", "quote": "not just records from the Epic system", "sources": [ { "label": "Official court-hosted order PDF", "url": "https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/d22c6c76-e3c1-4bb3-9221-0b225b80ae7c/Meherg%20v.%20Rush%20University%20Medical%20Center%2C%202025%20IL%20App%20%281st%29%20231102-U.pdf", "type": "Illinois Courts opinion hosting" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "IL-003", "title": "Hall v. Flannery", "citation": "No. 3:13-cv-914-SMY-DGW, Doc. 149 (S.D. Ill. May 1, 2015)", "date": "2015-05-01", "court": "U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois", "jurisdiction": "Illinois", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic" ], "platformStatus": "EPIC expressly named in the Background, PDF page 1", "topics": [ "Peer review", "Work product", "Audit trails", "Deadlines" ], "authority": "Federal magistrate discovery order; not binding California precedent", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Ordered responsive audit metadata disclosed despite the peer-review and work-product objections at issue; also denied late expert-disclosure and other requests.", "application": "Analyze how a log was generated and the basis for claimed privilege; plan expert work within disclosure deadlines.", "limits": "Applied Illinois privilege law; does not eliminate California peer-review protection or every privilege claim.", "locator": "PDF pages 1 and 3-6; privilege conclusion and subsequent motion rulings", "quote": "neither covered by the peer review privilege nor the work product doctrine", "sources": [ { "label": "Filed order text and PDF link", "url": "https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilsdce/3%3A2013cv00914/64423/149", "type": "Filed judicial order reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "KY-001", "title": "Borum v. Smith", "citation": "No. 4:17-cv-00017-JHM-HBB, Doc. 31; 2017 WL 3014487", "date": "2017-07-14", "court": "U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky", "jurisdiction": "Kentucky", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic" ], "platformStatus": "Epic Systems expressly named on PDF page 2", "topics": [ "On-site inspection", "Licensing", "Audit trails", "Reenactment" ], "authority": "Federal magistrate discovery order; persuasive only outside the case", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Allowed on-site inspection and a complete audit-trail copy; declined to compel EMR use during the physician's deposition or creation of a test patient.", "application": "Separate inspection of existing patient evidence from a proposed simulation; address licensing through a protective protocol.", "limits": "Accepted technical limits on an exact native copy; version changes and burden mattered. This is an order, not a liability verdict.", "locator": "PDF pages 2, 7-8, and 11-14; numbered final order", "quote": "Defendants are not required to create a test patient", "sources": [ { "label": "Filed court opinion PDF", "url": "https://www.ediscoverylaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Borum-v.-Smith-Case-Opinion.pdf", "type": "Original judicial order reproduced on a law-firm research site" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Post-remand ruling verified through March 16, 2023; final disposition not verified", "id": "VA-001", "title": "Lowe v. Cerner Corporation", "citation": "No. 20-2270, Doc. 48; 2022 WL 17269066 (4th Cir.)", "date": "2022-11-29", "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, applying Virginia law", "jurisdiction": "Virginia", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Cerner" ], "platformStatus": "Cerner's medical-ordering software expressly identified; do not infer a particular current product/version", "topics": [ "Software design", "Default times", "Failure to warn", "Causation" ], "authority": "Unpublished federal appellate opinion; expressly nonbinding in the Fourth Circuit", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Vacated defense summary judgment and remanded for trial on negligent-design and failure-to-warn claims; found sufficient evidence for jury consideration, not final vendor liability.", "application": "Preserve order-entry configuration, defaults, user interface behavior, prior warnings, and version-specific evidence.", "limits": "Virginia law and a dissent; the 2020 defense district-court judgment was vacated. Post-remand final disposition not verified.", "locator": "PDF pages 1-6, 12-18, and 21-28; majority versus dissent identified", "quote": "Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.", "history": "2020 defense judgment vacated in 2022. Original post-remand Doc. 203, March 16, 2023, quashed untimely subpoenas and recounted an April 11 trial setting; see VA-002. Actual trial and final outcome remain unverified.", "sources": [ { "label": "Official government opinion PDF", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270-0.pdf", "type": "U.S. Government Publishing Office court opinion" }, { "label": "Searchable opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/20-2270/20-2270-2022-11-29.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" }, { "label": "Verified post-remand order — see VA-002", "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/0.pdf", "type": "Original filed court order reproduced by Justia" } ], "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Filed three-page order reproduced as an ECF-stamped PDF; targeted searches and dated docket snapshot.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2023-03-16", "events": [ { "date": "2022-11-29", "description": "Fourth Circuit vacates defense summary judgment and remands; see VA-001.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270-0.pdf", "document": "20-2270, Doc. 48" }, { "date": "2023-03-16", "description": "Post-remand order quashes untimely subpoenas.", "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/0.pdf", "document": "203" } ], "gaps": [ "The public docket snapshot ends March 16, 2023. Trial occurrence, final judgment, settlement, and any subsequent appeal were not verified." ], "queries": [ "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2023\" remand settlement", "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2024\" trial" ] }, "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Order text reviewed via CaseMine mirror; official scanned caption checked", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-005", "title": "Donato v. Nutovits", "citation": "2016 NY Slip Op 32763(U); Index No. 70468/2012", "date": "2016-04-07", "court": "New York Supreme Court, Westchester County (trial court)", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Cerner" ], "platformStatus": "Cerner and P2 Sentinel expressly identified in the order's record", "topics": [ "Data availability", "Historical configuration", "Retention", "Audit trails" ], "authority": "Trial order, uncorrected and not selected for official publication; not appellate precedent", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Denied the motion to compel on the record that the requested metadata was unavailable because the relevant monitoring tool was installed after treatment.", "application": "Verify the facility's actual historic logging configuration and available repositories before claiming a particular report must exist.", "limits": "The court accepted a facility affidavit for this motion; it did not establish a universal Cerner technical limitation or decide a spoliation motion.", "locator": "Analysis and final order; interim information-services director affidavit discussion", "quote": "materials that exist, not materials that do not exist", "sources": [ { "label": "Official scanned order PDF", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2016/2016_32763.pdf", "type": "New York Law Reporting Bureau" }, { "label": "Reprinted order text used to read the scan's body", "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c365af9342cca0bddde1c2a", "type": "Judicial order reproduced by CaseMine" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NJ-001", "title": "Peterson v. Matlock", "citation": "No. 11-2594 (FLW)(DEA), Doc. 106 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2014)", "date": "2014-10-29", "court": "U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey", "jurisdiction": "New Jersey", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Centricity" ], "platformStatus": "Centricity expressly named; General Electric identified in the parties' account", "topics": [ "Native format", "Burden", "Audit metadata" ], "authority": "Federal magistrate discovery order; not binding California precedent", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Denied the requested native-format production on the demonstrated burden, while ordering available audit metadata supplied when it became available.", "application": "Evaluate alternative usable productions and substantiate the need for a requested format.", "limits": "Prison civil-rights case, not a malpractice liability ruling; the described export limitations are case-specific.", "locator": "PDF pages 3-5, Discussion and Conclusion", "quote": "Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with the metadata contained in the audit trail as soon as it becomes available.", "sources": [ { "label": "Filed opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3%3A2011cv02594/258819/106/", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "OR-001", "title": "Hofer v. Oregon Health and Science University", "citation": "328 Or. App. 352 (2023); No. A172328", "date": "2023-09-27", "court": "Oregon Court of Appeals, on remand from Oregon Supreme Court", "jurisdiction": "Oregon", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic" ], "platformStatus": "EPIC expressly named throughout the opinion, including pages 359-362", "topics": [ "EMR expert", "Access versus viewing", "Defamation" ], "authority": "Reported state appellate opinion; persuasive outside Oregon", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Reversed summary judgment on the defamation claim: the audit evidence and Oregon expert affidavit could create a publication issue; otherwise affirmed.", "application": "Explain what a log supports about record access without equating every chart access with viewing a particular note.", "limits": "Defamation and Oregon's distinctive expert-affidavit rule, not a malpractice or universal audit-discovery holding.", "locator": "328 Or. App. at 359-362, final analysis and disposition", "quote": "expert testimony could be helpful to a jury", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/2023/a172328.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "IA-001", "title": "McKenney v. Iowa Physicians Clinic Medical Foundation", "citation": "No. 24-0651 (Iowa Ct. App. June 18, 2025)", "date": "2025-06-18", "court": "Iowa Court of Appeals", "jurisdiction": "Iowa", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Epic" ], "platformStatus": "Epic Systems expressly named; referral versions and audit data discussed", "topics": [ "Discrepancies", "Timing of analysis", "Authentication", "New trial" ], "authority": "State appellate opinion; publication designation not separately confirmed; persuasive outside Iowa", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Affirmed denial of a new trial; upheld business-record foundation and rejected the post-verdict fraud challenge amid preservation, diligence, and proof problems.", "application": "Analyze known inconsistencies before trial and connect them to admissible evidence and timely objections.", "limits": "The court did not find that a discrepancy proved alteration or that the vendor committed wrongdoing.", "locator": "Opinion pages 3-4, 12-13, and 18-21; fraud-on-the-court discussion", "quote": "no party dug into the audit trail", "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/2025/24-0651.html", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "NY-006", "title": "Fung-Schwartz v. Cerner Corporation", "citation": "No. 19-2058 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2020), summary order", "date": "2020-04-01", "court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit", "jurisdiction": "New York", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "Cerner" ], "platformStatus": "Cerner-hosted EMR and interrupted access expressly discussed", "topics": [ "Record access", "Injunction", "Vendor contract" ], "authority": "Federal appellate summary order; nonprecedential", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Affirmed denial of a preliminary injunction because imminent irreparable harm from another access cutoff was not shown.", "application": "For access disputes, preserve concrete evidence of current access loss, threats, business effects, and alternative means of obtaining data.", "limits": "Did not decide the ultimate contract merits or establish a general right to cut off records.", "locator": "Irreparable-harm analysis and final disposition", "quote": "failed to demonstrate irreparable harm", "history": "An earlier 2018 order vacated for clarification is discussed; this record concerns the 2020 affirmance only.", "sources": [ { "label": "Summary order text", "url": "https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/2057803.html", "type": "Judicial order reprinted by FindLaw" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "VT-001", "title": "In re Modernizing Medicine, Inc. DOJ Investigation", "citation": "No. 2:21-mc-00178, Doc. 26 (D. Vt. June 14, 2022)", "date": "2022-06-14", "court": "U.S. District Court, District of Vermont", "jurisdiction": "Vermont", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "ModMed named as investigation subject; dispute was between United States and Warburg Pincus", "topics": [ "Attorney-client privilege", "Inadvertent disclosure", "Sealing" ], "authority": "Federal district-court opinion and order; persuasive only outside the case", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Denied the government's motion to compel a privileged email and addressed partial sealing; inadvertent disclosures did not waive privilege in the circumstances.", "application": "Keep privileged communications and clawback issues separate from ordinary automatically generated record data.", "limits": "Not an audit-integrity or malpractice finding against ModMed; concerned an email in an ancillary investigation.", "locator": "Opinion pages 5-12 and 18", "quote": "DENIES the government's motion to compel", "sources": [ { "label": "Filed opinion text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/vermont/vtdce/2%3A2021mc00178/33232/26/", "type": "Judicial opinion reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "No comprehensive citator or complete docket review", "id": "CO-001", "title": "Picco v. Glenn", "citation": "No. 12-cv-02858-RM-MJW, Doc. 225 (D. Colo. May 5, 2015)", "date": "2015-05-05", "court": "U.S. District Court, District of Colorado", "jurisdiction": "Colorado", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "MEDITECH" ], "platformStatus": "Meditech expressly identified; separate EKG and transcription sources also discussed", "topics": [ "Incomplete reports", "Multiple systems", "Database inspection", "Settlement" ], "authority": "Federal magistrate order applying settlement terms; persuasive only outside the case", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Denied the hospital's settlement-enforcement motion and ordered additional audit data and a supported forensic inspection, including database queries, under the settlement's completeness obligation.", "application": "Inventory underlying databases and ancillary systems; compare report filters with the agreed production scope.", "limits": "Fact-specific findings and settlement language, not proof that every MEDITECH installation stores the same data or requires the same inspection.", "locator": "Findings 42-62 and final order paragraphs 1-4", "quote": "only a subset of the information actually available in the audit trail itself", "sources": [ { "label": "Filed findings and order", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1%3A2012cv02858/136498/225/", "type": "Judicial order reprinted by Justia" } ], "historyReview": "Not checked comprehensively" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Settlement instrument verified; complete closing docket not verified", "id": "ENF-001", "title": "United States ex rel. Long v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.", "citation": "No. 2:17-cv-179 (D. Vt.); government complaint, settlement announcement, and filed agreement Doc. 48-1", "date": "2022-11-01", "court": "District of Vermont; U.S. Department of Justice", "jurisdiction": "Vermont", "track": "Enforcement materials", "kind": "Enforcement material", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "ModMed and EMA expressly identified in complaint paragraphs 1-4", "topics": [ "Vendor allegations", "Certification", "False Claims Act" ], "authority": "Government complaint and settlement announcement; not an adjudicated malpractice precedent", "direction": "Context", "holding": "DOJ announced a $45 million settlement of alleged kickback and false-claims conduct. The government complaint also alleged required-vocabulary limitations during a specified historical period.", "application": "Use as a source map for historical product, certification, and vendor-document questions.", "limits": "Allegations resolved without a liability determination; not proof of tampering in a client case or a current product defect. Filed agreement Doc. 48-1 is now independently reviewed; recital E disclaims an admission. Complete closing docket not verified.", "locator": "Complaint paragraphs 1-4; DOJ announcement final liability disclaimer", "quote": "there has been no determination of liability", "sources": [ { "label": "Government complaint PDF", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1256786/dl", "type": "Original government pleading" }, { "label": "DOJ settlement announcement", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/modernizing-medicine-agrees-pay-45-million-resolve-allegations-accepting-and-paying-illegal", "type": "Official DOJ announcement" }, { "label": "Filed settlement agreement — independently reviewed", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/media/1256801/dl", "type": "Original ECF-stamped settlement agreement, Doc. 48-1, hosted by DOJ" } ], "history": "Agreement filed Nov. 1, 2022: paragraph 1 specifies $45 million plus specified interest; recital E disclaims an admission; paragraph 16 provides for a future stipulated dismissal upon receipt of payment. The agreement itself does not establish that the dismissal was subsequently entered.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Filed agreement and previously reviewed government complaint/announcement; targeted later-history searches.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2022-11-01", "events": [ { "date": "2022-11-01", "description": "Filed settlement agreement reviewed, including no-admission and conditional dismissal provisions.", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/media/1256801/dl", "document": "48-1, recital E; ¶¶ 1, 16" } ], "gaps": [ "Payment performance, actual dismissal filing/order, and complete closing history not verified." ], "queries": [ "\"2:17-cv-00179\" Modernizing docket", "\"Modernizing Medicine\" \"Long\" \"Cane\" dismissal settlement 2023" ] }, "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "id": "ENF-002", "title": "United States ex rel. Delaney v. eClinicalWorks, LLC", "citation": "No. 2:15-cv-95 (D. Vt.); complaint in intervention, paragraphs 65-67", "date": "2017-05-31", "court": "District of Vermont; U.S. Department of Justice", "jurisdiction": "Vermont", "track": "Enforcement materials", "kind": "Enforcement material", "platforms": [ "eClinicalWorks" ], "platformStatus": "eClinicalWorks expressly named in complaint and announcement", "topics": [ "Audit reliability", "Certification", "Vendor allegations" ], "authority": "Government complaint and settlement announcement; allegations, not a malpractice merits judgment", "direction": "Context", "holding": "DOJ announced a $155 million resolution. Its complaint alleged audit logs mischaracterized some actions and did not reliably track certain deletions.", "application": "Treat event labels and completeness as matters to validate against the specific product, version, and corroborating evidence.", "limits": "Historical allegations involving another vendor do not prove defects in Epic, Cerner, ModMed, DrChrono, or a current eClinicalWorks installation.", "locator": "Complaint paragraphs 65-67, PDF pages 15-16; settlement announcement", "quote": "did not accurately record user actions", "sources": [ { "label": "Government complaint PDF", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/media/898951/dl?inline=", "type": "Original government pleading" }, { "label": "DOJ settlement announcement", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/electronic-health-records-vendor-pay-155-million-settle-false-claims-act-allegations", "type": "Official DOJ announcement" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Confirm the treatment date, product version, permissions, configuration, and actual retained data before applying this documentation.", "id": "TECH-DR-001", "title": "DrChrono Audit Log", "citation": "Vendor help article; last modified August 27, 2025", "date": "2025-08-27", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Vendor-authored DrChrono article", "topics": [ "Time zones", "Lock and unlock", "Log types" ], "holding": "Describes patient/user/type/date filters, appointment create/update/delete events, clinical note lock/unlock events, and timestamps displayed in the logged-in user's time zone.", "application": "Record viewer time-zone settings and request applicable log types separately.", "locator": "View audit logs; Log types; Filter by clinical note", "quote": "The timestamp reflects the time zone of the logged-in user.", "sources": [ { "label": "Official vendor article", "url": "https://support.drchrono.com/home/audit-log", "type": "DrChrono support documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Confirm the treatment date, product version, permissions, configuration, and actual retained data before applying this documentation.", "id": "TECH-DR-002", "title": "DrChrono Exporting Your Audit Logs", "citation": "Vendor help article; last modified July 8, 2024", "date": "2024-07-08", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Vendor-authored DrChrono article", "topics": [ "CSV export", "Export process", "Usable format" ], "holding": "Describes an Export to File workflow that produces a downloadable audit-log CSV through the message center.", "application": "Ask for the original exported file, its generation scope, and filters rather than relying solely on a screenshot.", "locator": "Export to File and message-center download steps", "quote": "The logs can be exported to a CSV file", "sources": [ { "label": "Official vendor article", "url": "https://support.drchrono.com/home/226465727-exporting-your-audit-logs", "type": "DrChrono support documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Confirm the treatment date, product version, permissions, configuration, and actual retained data before applying this documentation.", "id": "TECH-DR-003", "title": "DrChrono Access Logs", "citation": "Vendor help article; last modified February 25, 2025", "date": "2025-02-25", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Vendor-authored DrChrono article", "topics": [ "Vendor support access", "User attribution", "System messages" ], "holding": "Describes logs of vendor-team access, the DrChronoEmployee user label, the DrChrono Access log type, and incoming system notices.", "application": "Distinguish provider/staff activity from vendor-support activity and seek the associated system messages.", "locator": "Article body and log-label explanation", "quote": "the user appears as DrChronoEmployee", "sources": [ { "label": "Official vendor article", "url": "https://support.drchrono.com/home/drchrono-access-logs", "type": "DrChrono support documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Confirm the treatment date, product version, permissions, configuration, and actual retained data before applying this documentation.", "id": "TECH-DR-004", "title": "DrChrono Missing Clinical Note Troubleshooting", "citation": "I can't find my patient's clinical note!; modified July 8, 2024", "date": "2024-07-08", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Vendor-authored DrChrono article", "topics": [ "Deleted appointments", "Missing notes", "Alternative explanations" ], "holding": "Identifies deletion of an associated appointment as a possible explanation for a missing attached note and directs users to check the audit log.", "application": "Test appointment-deletion history as one hypothesis before attributing a missing note to intentional conduct.", "locator": "Opening explanation and numbered verification steps", "quote": "the associated appointment was deleted", "sources": [ { "label": "Official vendor article", "url": "https://support.drchrono.com/home/209266528-i-can-t-find-my-patient-s-clinical-note", "type": "DrChrono support documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Expiration of generated download files is not proof that underlying patient data or audit logs were deleted. Historical version applicability remains unverified.", "id": "TECH-DR-005", "title": "DrChrono EHI Export Requests", "citation": "Creating a New Request: EHI Export; modified November 17, 2025", "date": "2025-11-17", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Vendor-authored DrChrono export guide", "topics": [ "Export provenance", "Data Export logs", "Export expiration" ], "holding": "Describes individual and bulk exports, audit logging of export actions and scope, and a 30-day download window for generated export files.", "application": "Preserve the export package plus request metadata, selected scope, initiating user, and completion history.", "locator": "PDF pages 1 and 5-6, export availability and tracking", "quote": "log type: Data Export", "sources": [ { "label": "Official vendor guide PDF", "url": "https://support.drchrono.com/home/pdfexport/id/668c73cc5487e4c1a7089552", "type": "DrChrono support documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Does not establish that an EHI export contains every audit event or historical version. Product/version applicability and any restrictions on redistributing the dictionary need separate review.", "id": "TECH-MM-001", "title": "ModMed EMA Single Patient EHI Export Data Dictionary", "citation": "Vendor-published 96-page data dictionary; document date not stated in reviewed opening", "date": null, "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "EMA expressly identified in document title", "topics": [ "Time zones", "Data dictionary", "EHI export", "Multiple modules" ], "holding": "Describes export tables and columns, states UTC treatment of date/timestamps except _ld fields, and notes PM tables can be empty where PM is not used.", "application": "Use the matching dictionary to interpret fields and distinguish UTC from local-time values.", "locator": "PDF page 3, Document purpose and notes; page 4 table-group descriptions", "quote": "All date/timestamp fields are recorded using UTC time", "sources": [ { "label": "Vendor data dictionary PDF", "url": "https://www.modmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/crp-13749-ModMed-EMA-EHI-Export-Data-Dictionary-for-Single-Patient-Export.pdf", "type": "ModMed technical documentation" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "court": "Vendor documentation", "jurisdiction": "Technical", "track": "Technical documentation", "kind": "Vendor documentation", "authority": "Vendor's own documentation; not legal precedent or proof of a particular installation", "direction": "Technical", "limits": "Historical vendor disclosure, not a current-version certification finding, facility compliance assessment, or proof that logs are complete.", "id": "TECH-MM-002", "title": "ModMed EMA Version 4.0 Historical Certification Disclosure", "citation": "ONC HIT 2014 Edition EHR Certification; EMA and EMA Mobile version 4.0", "date": null, "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "EMA 4.0 and EMA Mobile 4.0 expressly named", "topics": [ "Historical version", "Certification", "Audit reports" ], "holding": "The vendor lists version-specific 2014 Edition certification and criteria including auditable events, tamper resistance, and audit reports.", "application": "Locate the actual certification edition and version relevant to treatment instead of using today's feature descriptions.", "locator": "EMA 4.0 introductory disclosure; Privacy and Security criteria", "quote": "EMA® version 4.0", "sources": [ { "label": "Historical vendor disclosure", "url": "https://www.modmed.com/onc/", "type": "ModMed certification disclosure" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "id": "RULE-001", "title": "Federal Civil Discovery and ESI Preservation Rules", "citation": "Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 34(a)-(b), and 37(e); December 1, 2025 compilation", "date": "2025-12-01", "court": "Federal civil rules", "jurisdiction": "Federal", "track": "Rules and regulatory foundation", "kind": "Rule or guidance", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Technology-neutral", "topics": [ "Proportionality", "Usable format", "Preservation", "Intent" ], "authority": "Federal procedural rules; federal district-court proceedings", "direction": "Foundation", "holding": "Rule 26 addresses relevant, proportional discovery; Rule 34 governs production forms; Rule 37(e) addresses lost ESI and distinguishes prejudice remedies from intent-based severe measures.", "application": "Keep requests, production-format disputes, and preservation analyses tied to the governing court's procedural rules.", "limits": "Federal rules do not replace California or other state discovery rules. Loss alone is not enough for every Rule 37(e) remedy.", "locator": "Printed pages 41-42, 58-59, and 64-65 in the official PDF", "quote": "proportional to the needs of the case", "sources": [ { "label": "Official rules compilation", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf", "type": "U.S. Courts official rules PDF" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "id": "RULE-002", "title": "ONC Health IT Audit Certification Criteria", "citation": "45 C.F.R. § 170.315(d)(2)-(3)", "date": null, "court": "Federal regulation", "jurisdiction": "Federal", "track": "Rules and regulatory foundation", "kind": "Rule or guidance", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Technology-neutral certification criteria", "topics": [ "Auditable events", "Tamper resistance", "Audit reports" ], "authority": "Federal certification regulation; eCFR text displayed current through November 4, 2026", "direction": "Foundation", "holding": "Sets certification capabilities for recording actions, protecting logs, detecting alteration, and generating sortable audit reports for specified time periods.", "application": "Identify the applicable certification edition and module before comparing documented capabilities with a production.", "limits": "Not an automatic civil-discovery entitlement or proof that every installed system retained every event. Historical rules may differ.", "locator": "Subsections (d)(2)(i)-(v) and (d)(3)", "quote": "Technology must be able to detect whether the audit log has been altered.", "sources": [ { "label": "eCFR regulation text", "url": "https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-D/part-170/subpart-C/section-170.315", "type": "Official government eCFR service; authoritative but unofficial codification" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Relevant primary text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Not applicable to nonjudicial source", "id": "RULE-003", "title": "HHS OCR Audit Protocol on Audit Controls and Integrity", "citation": "HHS Audit Protocol, updated July 2018; rows for 45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b)-(c)", "date": "2018-07", "court": "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services", "jurisdiction": "Federal", "track": "Rules and regulatory foundation", "kind": "Rule or guidance", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "Technology-neutral guidance", "topics": [ "Audit controls", "Integrity", "System inventory" ], "authority": "Agency audit guidance reproducing regulatory criteria; not a judicial opinion", "direction": "Foundation", "holding": "Identifies review of audit controls across ePHI systems and safeguards against improper alteration or destruction.", "application": "Use the systems inventory, logging policies, and implementation records as technical inquiry subjects.", "limits": "Guidance is labeled July 2018, not a fully updated 2026 compliance opinion; it does not determine discovery scope or create a standalone malpractice claim.", "locator": "Security rows for §164.312(b), (c)(1), and (c)(2)", "quote": "record and examine activity", "sources": [ { "label": "HHS current-linked audit protocol", "url": "https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/compliance-enforcement/audit/protocol/index.html", "type": "Official HHS agency guidance" } ], "historyReview": "Not applicable" }, { "id": "MA-001", "title": "Valley Eye Physicians and Surgeons P.C. v. Modernizing Medicine Billing Services, LLC", "citation": "No. 1:25-cv-10774-DJC, Doc. 22 (D. Mass. July 18, 2025)", "date": "2025-07-18", "court": "U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts; Judge Denise J. Casper", "jurisdiction": "Massachusetts", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "caseType": "Medical billing services; commercial claims", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "The caption names Modernizing Medicine Billing Services, LLC; the opinion calls it ModMed. This is a billing-services case; EMA or another EHR product/version is not established.", "topics": [ "Billing services", "Fraud pleading", "Economic loss", "Fiduciary duty", "Adverse authority" ], "authority": "Federal district-court ruling under Massachusetts law; persuasive authority, not binding California appellate precedent", "direction": "Limiting", "facts": "The practices alleged missed billing deadlines, unsubmitted claims, and erroneous patient invoices. Those are allegations accepted for the dismissal motion.", "holding": "Dismissed all six pleaded claims. Fraud allegations inadequately supported scienter, and the challenged capacity/expertise assurances were nonactionable opinion. The pleaded dependence did not establish a fiduciary duty; negligence alleged only economic harm. Other counts also failed.", "application": "For counsel assessing vendor claims, preserve specific representations and contemporaneous performance evidence. A discrepancy alone does not establish fraudulent intent or a fiduciary relationship.", "limits": "A pleading-stage defense win concerning billing services. It does not decide record alteration, malpractice causation, or EMA audit completeness. The negligence discussion also notes waiver of opposition. Later appellate status remains unverified.", "locator": "Doc. 22 pp. 5–8 (fraud); 9–12 (fiduciary/93A); 14–16 (negligence and disposition)", "quote": "the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss", "originalRuling": { "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774-0.pdf", "document": "Doc. 22, filed July 18, 2025", "locator": "pp. 1 and 16", "status": "Filed ruling text reviewed" }, "history": "The public docket snapshot lists a separate dismissal order, Doc. 23, on July 18, 2025. That order was not independently retrieved. No later appellate disposition was verified.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Original opinion; public docket snapshot last retrieved July 18, 2025; targeted caption/appeal searches.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2025-07-18", "events": [ { "date": "2025-07-18", "description": "Original memorandum allows dismissal of all six pleaded counts.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774-0.pdf", "document": "22" }, { "date": "2025-07-18", "description": "Docket snapshot lists Doc. 23, order dismissing case; listing reviewed, underlying order not retrieved.", "url": "https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2025cv10774/282755", "document": "23 (docket text only)" } ], "gaps": [ "The public docket snapshot ends July 18, 2025. Complete current docket, amended pleadings, appeals, mandate, and subsequent treatment were not verified." ], "queries": [ "\"Valley Eye\" \"Modernizing\" appeal", "\"Valley Eye\" \"10774\"" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Original filed memorandum (GovInfo)", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-10774-0.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion PDF via GovInfo" }, { "label": "Docket snapshot — ends July 18, 2025", "url": "https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2025cv10774/282755", "type": "Docket entries reproduced by Justia; incomplete current history" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Filed ruling text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "id": "CA-007", "title": "Tahoe Forest Hospital District v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.", "citation": "No. 2:21-cv-01705-TLN-CKD, Doc. 17 (E.D. Cal.; signed Aug. 9, filed Aug. 11, 2022)", "date": "2022-08-11", "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; Judge Troy L. Nunley", "jurisdiction": "California", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "caseType": "Software contract and disputed recurring fees; transfer of venue", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "Modernizing Medicine is the named defendant and software licensor. The ruling does not establish a particular product/version.", "topics": [ "Software contract", "Forum-selection clause", "Transfer", "Nonsignatory", "Source correction" ], "authority": "Federal district-court transfer order; not a California state appellate malpractice precedent", "direction": "Limiting", "facts": "The hospital sought recovery of recurring software charges following an asset purchase and addendum.", "holding": "Enforced the contractual forum-selection clause and transferred the action to the Southern District of Florida. The claims were sufficiently connected to the contractual relationship despite the hospital’s nonsignatory argument; the identified public-policy interests did not justify refusing transfer.", "application": "For vendor-related research, collect the license, addenda, contracting-party changes, and forum clause before assuming where claims may proceed.", "limits": "Venue only. The court expressly did not reach the alternative dismissal motion. Closing the California file upon transfer did not adjudicate the merits.", "locator": "Doc. 17 p. 3 (does not reach dismissal); pp. 5–7 (analysis and transfer)", "quote": "the Court need not and does not address the motion to dismiss", "originalRuling": { "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705-1.pdf", "document": "Doc. 17; signed Aug. 9, filed Aug. 11, 2022", "locator": "Court heading p. 1; disposition p. 7", "status": "Filed ruling text reviewed" }, "history": "The hospital’s August 25, 2022 board agenda identifies the Florida case as 22-81252-CIV-CANNON. Later merits disposition was not verified. Some reprint indexes mislabel the California transfer order as a Florida ruling; the original heading controls.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Original transfer order; hospital board agenda confirming destination docket; targeted post-transfer searches.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2022-08-25", "events": [ { "date": "2022-08-11", "description": "Transfer ordered from E.D. California to S.D. Florida; California case closed for transfer.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705-1.pdf", "document": "17" }, { "date": "2022-08-25", "description": "Hospital board agenda lists Florida docket 22-81252-CIV-CANNON; party record, not a merits ruling.", "url": "https://www.tfhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2022-08-25-Regular-Meeting-of-the-Board-of-Directors_FINAL-Agenda_2.pdf", "document": "Agenda item 5.5" } ], "gaps": [ "Florida docket, subsequent rulings, settlement or judgment, and appellate history remain unverified. Do not count a reprinted transfer order as a second Florida decision." ], "queries": [ "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"Modernizing\" court order appeal", "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"81252\" settlement", "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"22-cv-81252\"" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Original California transfer order", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01705-1.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion PDF via GovInfo" }, { "label": "Hospital board agenda identifying Florida docket", "url": "https://www.tfhd.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2022-08-25-Regular-Meeting-of-the-Board-of-Directors_FINAL-Agenda_2.pdf", "type": "Official hospital-district document; confirms docket identity only" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Filed ruling text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "id": "CT-001", "title": "Colker and Peak Wellness, Inc. v. Callis and Holland Law Firm LLC", "citation": "No. 3:25-cv-00711-SFR, Doc. 90 (D. Conn. Oct. 29, 2026); related Doc. 62 (Mar. 13, 2026)", "date": "2026-10-29", "court": "U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut; Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector (Doc. 90); Judge Sarah F. Russell (Doc. 62)", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Other records litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "caseType": "Defamation arising from a medical-records dispute; privilege and discovery", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The FILED COMPLAINT, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly names DrChrono and alleges note-author/creation/lock metadata. The reviewed rulings do not themselves name the brand or validate those alleged capabilities.", "topics": [ "Medical-record production", "Underlying facts", "Work product", "Privilege", "Allegations versus findings" ], "authority": "Federal trial-level discovery order; reviewable under Rule 72(a), not a malpractice judgment or vendor-liability finding", "direction": "Mixed", "facts": "A physician and practice sued a patient’s attorneys over public statements concerning treatment and production of medical records.", "holding": "Granted discovery in part: ordered discrete underlying facts and specified medical-record attachments, while protecting privileged communications and opinion work product. Public statements supported case-specific implied-waiver rulings. The order expressly rejected a wholesale review of the patient’s records.", "application": "Keep source facts, medical-record attachments, and counsel’s analysis distinct. Tie each requested item to the precise claim or disputed statement.", "limits": "No finding of chart alteration, incomplete DrChrono exports, or vendor fault. This defamation ruling is not a general EHR access entitlement. Objections or modification of this recent order remain possible; production was ordered by Nov. 12, 2026.", "locator": "Doc. 90 pp. 14–19, especially p. 18 n.6; pp. 25–26 disposition/review. Brand: Doc. 1 ¶ 19, p. 4.", "quote": "This ruling does not mean the plaintiffs are entitled to a wholesale review", "originalRuling": { "url": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-90=", "document": "Doc. 90, October 29, 2026", "locator": "pp. 18 n.6 and 25–26", "status": "Filed ruling text reviewed" }, "history": "March 13, 2026 Doc. 62 denied dismissal on the asserted public-figure ground, allowing renewal after discovery. October 29 Doc. 90 then resolved the privilege dispute. Neither ruling decides whether the underlying medical-record accusations were true. The separate state case is now briefed in CT-002–CT-006. Its official docket verifies filing July 16, 2024 and return July 23, 2024. Its March 2026 appeal dismissal does not dispose of this federal defamation case.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Original court-hosted Docs. 62 and 90; filed complaint; targeted later-event/objection searches.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-10-29", "events": [ { "date": "2025-05-02", "description": "Filed complaint expressly identifies DrChrono; statements about metadata are party allegations.", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "document": "1 ¶ 19" }, { "date": "2026-03-13", "description": "Dismissal denied on the asserted public-figure ground; issue may be renewed at summary judgment.", "url": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-62=", "document": "62" }, { "date": "2026-10-29", "description": "Discovery partly compelled, with protected material withheld/redacted and specified records produced by Nov. 12.", "url": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-90=", "document": "90" } ], "gaps": [ "No complete current docket or Rule 72 objection review. A search index reports a Nov. 2 sealed-motion event; its original text and effect were not verified. No final defamation judgment verified." ], "queries": [ "\"Colker\" \"Callis\" \"711\" order dismiss", "\"Colker\" \"Callis\" \"90\" November 2026 objection" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Original discovery ruling — court host", "url": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-90=", "type": "Original court-hosted filed ruling PDF" }, { "label": "Original dismissal ruling — court host", "url": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-62=", "type": "Original court-hosted filed ruling PDF" }, { "label": "Filed complaint — DrChrono identification", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "ECF-stamped party pleading reproduced by ALM; allegations only" }, { "label": "Related state case — official docket", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Separate state proceeding; not federal later-history clearance" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Filed ruling text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete", "relatedCases": [ { "docket": "FST-CV24-6068091-S", "role": "Separate state bill of discovery", "recordIds": [ "CT-002", "CT-003", "CT-004", "CT-005", "CT-006" ] } ] }, { "id": "PA-001", "title": "United States v. Neil K. Anand — post-conviction audit-log and analytics requests", "citation": "No. 2:19-cr-00518-CFK, Doc. 782 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2026), followed by Doc. 833 (Sept. 28, 2026)", "date": "2026-09-28", "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Judge Chad F. Kenney", "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania", "track": "Other records litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "caseType": "Criminal post-conviction discovery during direct appeals", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "Doc. 833 p. 2 expressly identifies the earlier request for audit logs and authenticity/chain-of-custody material for DrChrono EHRs introduced at trial. Brand is verified in the ruling itself.", "topics": [ "Audit logs", "Chain of custody", "Authentication", "Post-conviction discovery", "Jurisdiction", "Adverse authority" ], "authority": "Federal district-court memoranda; criminal procedural rulings, not civil malpractice or vendor-liability precedent", "direction": "Limiting", "holding": "Denied post-conviction discovery requests while direct appeals were pending. April’s memorandum addressed audit logs and authentication material; September’s denied a further algorithmic/statistical-information request for lack of jurisdiction and incorporated April’s Rule 16/Brady discussion.", "application": "Useful adverse procedural context: identify the proceeding, stage, jurisdiction, requested data, and legal basis before applying an audit-log decision to a different case.", "limits": "The rulings do not find the EHRs complete or authentic, decide the merits of a Brady violation, or establish civil discovery limits. This is separate from the still-unretrieved September 5, 2024 suppression ruling.", "locator": "Doc. 782 pp. 1–4; Doc. 833 pp. 1–3, especially p. 2 naming DrChrono.", "quote": "all chain of custody documentation, certificates of authenticity, and complete audit logs for the DrChrono electronic health records", "originalRuling": { "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "document": "Doc. 833, filed Sept. 28, 2026", "locator": "p. 2", "status": "Filed ruling text reviewed" }, "history": "Doc. 833 expressly describes the appeals, Nos. 25-2804 and 25-2902, as pending on September 28, 2026 and discusses the earlier denied request. No later appellate merits decision was verified as of the research date. The ECF 427 suppression docket entry is now independently located and corroborates a denial of motion 406; its PDF remains unreviewed. See PA-002 for exact retrieval identifiers and availability.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Original April 29 and September 28, 2026 memoranda; GovInfo context list; targeted searches using both appeal numbers. Exact suppression docket entries ECF 406/427 were also checked separately in PA-002; they do not provide the missing reasoning.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-09-28", "events": [ { "date": "2026-04-29", "description": "Post-conviction records request denied; court declined to determine whether requested documents were Brady material.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-25.pdf", "document": "782" }, { "date": "2026-09-28", "description": "Further analytics disclosure denied; expressly identifies DrChrono audit logs in earlier request and says direct appeals remain pending.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "document": "833" } ], "gaps": [ "GovInfo is an opinion collection, not a complete live docket. Appellate merits outcome after Sept. 28, 2026, mandate, and any treatment of these orders remain unverified." ], "queries": [ "\"Neil Anand\" \"25-2902\" decision court", "\"Neil Anand\" \"25-2804\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Original September 2026 memorandum", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion PDF via GovInfo", "localFile": "sources/Anand-833-2026-09-28-analytics.pdf", "sha256": "40b3deb34ba1289a87390091d5274a4ca0388619705528ae4b45fcf41bfa3997" }, { "label": "Original April 2026 memorandum", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-25.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion PDF via GovInfo" }, { "label": "Official collection context — not full docket", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/context", "type": "GovInfo court-opinion chronology" }, { "label": "Exact suppression entry — docket only", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/427/united-states-v-anand/", "type": "Cross-reference only; not a reviewed suppression opinion" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Filed ruling text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "id": "VA-002", "title": "Lowe v. Cerner Health Services, Inc. — post-remand subpoenas", "citation": "No. 1:19-cv-00625-CMH-LRV, Doc. 203 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2023)", "date": "2023-03-16", "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia; Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala", "jurisdiction": "Virginia", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Judicial decision", "caseType": "Post-remand discovery scheduling in the Cerner product-liability action", "platforms": [ "Cerner" ], "platformStatus": "The filed caption names Cerner Health Services, Inc.; confirms proceedings after the Fourth Circuit decision in VA-001.", "topics": [ "Later history", "Remand", "Discovery deadlines", "Rule 45", "Good cause" ], "authority": "Federal magistrate discovery order; not a final judgment on software liability", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Quashed fourteen healthcare-provider subpoenas issued after discovery closed. Cerner had not sought reopening or shown good cause, and had recently represented that no additional discovery was needed.", "application": "Track preservation and discovery deadlines independently of remand. Remand does not itself reopen discovery.", "limits": "This scheduling decision proves that proceedings resumed; it does not prove that the scheduled April 11, 2023 trial occurred or establish any verdict, settlement, or final vendor liability.", "locator": "Doc. 203 pp. 1–3, especially pp. 2–3 good cause and disposition", "quote": "Defendant has failed to meet the \"good cause\" standard", "originalRuling": { "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/0.pdf", "document": "Doc. 203, filed March 16, 2023", "locator": "ECF header and pp. 1–3", "status": "Filed ruling text reviewed" }, "history": "The order recounts the successful appeal, a January 27, 2023 status conference, and an April 11 trial setting. Final post-remand outcome remains unverified.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Filed three-page order reproduced as an ECF-stamped PDF; targeted searches and dated docket snapshot.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2023-03-16", "events": [ { "date": "2022-11-29", "description": "Fourth Circuit vacates defense summary judgment and remands; see VA-001.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-20-02270-0.pdf", "document": "20-2270, Doc. 48" }, { "date": "2023-03-16", "description": "Post-remand order quashes untimely subpoenas.", "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/0.pdf", "document": "203" } ], "gaps": [ "The public docket snapshot ends March 16, 2023. Trial occurrence, final judgment, settlement, and any subsequent appeal were not verified." ], "queries": [ "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2023\" remand settlement", "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2024\" trial" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Filed order PDF — ECF stamp", "url": "https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/0.pdf", "type": "Original filed court order reproduced by Justia" }, { "label": "Searchable court-order text", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2019cv00625/442492/203/", "type": "Judicial order reprint, not publisher-generated summary" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Filed ruling text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "id": "SETTLE-001", "title": "Cavallaro-Kearins v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc. — proposed data-breach settlement", "citation": "No. 9:25-cv-81443-EA (S.D. Fla.); Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement (undated notice reviewed Nov. 5, 2026)", "date": "", "court": "Settlement administrator for litigation in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida", "jurisdiction": "Florida", "track": "Vendor litigation", "kind": "Settlement material", "caseType": "Data breach and EHR migration servers; proposed class settlement", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "platformStatus": "The administrator’s site and notice expressly identify ModMed and servers used for limited conversion from retiring EHR platforms. Specific retiring products/versions are not established.", "topics": [ "Data migration", "Data breach", "Settlement", "Pending approval", "Not precedent" ], "authority": "Primary settlement notice and administrator update; not a judicial merits ruling", "direction": "Context", "holding": "The notice describes a proposed resolution of allegations about a July 2025 cyberattack involving migration servers. ModMed denies wrongdoing. The administrator states that final approval remains to be decided, with a hearing scheduled for November 17, 2026.", "application": "Source map for questions about historical migration data, conversion infrastructure, and retention. Obtain case-specific evidence before drawing any inference about a medical record.", "limits": "No liability determination, chart-alteration finding, or malpractice precedent. Signed preliminary-approval order, complete settlement agreement, and later docket were not retrieved. Do not describe the settlement as finally approved as of Nov. 5, 2026.", "locator": "Notice pp. 1–3 and section on final-approval hearing; administrator home page “Upcoming Important Dates”", "quote": "the Court has not decided who is right", "history": "Final approval is pending according to the current administrator page. The November 17, 2026 hearing is a scheduled future event, not an outcome.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Primary notice copy and settlement-administrator page read; underlying approval orders not retrieved.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-11-05", "events": [ { "date": "2026-11-05", "description": "Administrator page states final approval remains pending; hearing scheduled for Nov. 17, 2026.", "url": "https://www.modernizingmedicinedatasettlement.com/", "document": "Administrator status as viewed" } ], "gaps": [ "The signed preliminary approval and any subsequent docket orders were not verified. No final approval or appellate finality established." ], "queries": [ "\"Cavallaro-Kearins\" \"preliminary\" order pdf", "\"Cavallaro-Kearins\" \"Modernizing\" settlement" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Primary settlement notice — reproduced PDF", "url": "https://www.classaction.org/media/modmed-data-breach-settlement-notice_1.pdf", "type": "Court-authorized notice reproduced by ClassAction.org; not a ruling" }, { "label": "Settlement administrator — current status", "url": "https://www.modernizingmedicinedatasettlement.com/", "type": "Primary administrator page; not a judicial opinion" } ], "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Primary settlement notice and administrator text reviewed", "laterHistoryStatus": "Targeted history review; gaps expressly recorded", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete" }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Original court-hosted ruling read; source copy preserved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Official trial and appellate dockets reviewed to stated cutoff; no citator clearance", "historyReview": "Official trial/appellate dockets reviewed", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The state rulings do not name an EHR. The related federal complaint in Colker v. Callis, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly identifies DrChrono as Peak Wellness’s records platform. This tag relies on that related party pleading, not a state-court finding about the software or its features.", "platformEvidenceType": "Related-case party pleading; not named in state ruling", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Official docket history reviewed; no citator clearance", "coverage": "Original trial orders and incorporated records proposal; official trial and appellate dockets retrieved Nov. 5, 2026. The appellate site reports data through the previous business day. The March 17 party notice was reviewed only on its cover page.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-03-17", "events": [ { "date": "2024-07-16", "description": "Official trial docket lists complaint filing, with a distinct July 23 return date.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "100.31 / docket header" }, { "date": "2025-05-12", "description": "Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04; see also 104.03" }, { "date": "2025-06-27", "description": "Clarification characterizes bill of discovery as an independent equitable action and directs proposed schedules.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01" }, { "date": "2025-07-30", "description": "Proposed schedule rejected; applications for specific deposition and records orders required for hearing.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "document": "124.01" }, { "date": "2025-08-12", "description": "Records proposal approved; separate deposition proposal rejected for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 / 129.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-11", "description": "Compliance order requires payment records, privilege log, specific objections, and documentation of data sources/search methods; testimony denied without prejudice.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-29", "description": "Defendants filed appeal AC 49493 from the postjudgment enforcement order.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "document": "Appeal opening; trial entry 148.00" }, { "date": "2026-03-04", "description": "Appeal dismissed: untimely as to August judgment and no subject-matter jurisdiction over December postjudgment order; no merits affirmance.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 49493; motion AC 253638" }, { "date": "2026-03-17", "description": "Trial docket lists defendants’ notice of compliance. A party filing is not a judicial finding of complete compliance.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "151.00" } ], "gaps": [ "Trial docket’s last action is March 17, 2026. Appellate docket shows Disposed on March 4, 2026 and lists no certification petition in the displayed field. This is a description of the retrieved dockets, not a comprehensive citator review.", "No later court finding that every requested record was produced was verified. Sealed filings and unlisted or separate proceedings are outside this review." ], "queries": [ "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "id": "CT-002", "title": "Grant v. Colker and Peak Wellness — jurisdiction over the bill of discovery", "citation": "No. FST-CV24-6068091-S, Entry 104.04 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 12, 2025); companion Entry 104.03", "date": "2025-05-12", "court": "Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford; Judge Colleen Zingaro", "caseType": "Pre-action medical-record and metadata discovery; dismissal motion", "topics": [ "Pre-action discovery", "Medical records", "Metadata", "Subject-matter jurisdiction" ], "authority": "State trial-court memorandum; no malpractice or vendor-liability adjudication", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Denied the jurisdictional dismissal motion. The challenged verification concerned pleading sufficiency and was also cured by an affidavit. The court found alleged potential claims cognizable in Superior Court and was not persuaded that discovery was sought merely for the separate federal case.", "application": "A useful Connecticut procedural example for counsel evaluating pre-action record discovery. Substantiate the potential claim and why the sought evidence is needed; do not treat a record discrepancy alone as an entitlement to relief.", "limits": "Missing records, metadata, and potential wrongdoing are allegations, not adjudicated facts. The ruling did not grant unrestricted discovery. The original memorandum misnames Colker as “Carolyn”; the official docket identifies Carlon and the same docket number.", "locator": "Original memorandum pp. 2 (metadata allegations), 4 (verification), 5–7 (potential state claims and conclusion)", "quote": "the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied", "originalRuling": { "status": "Original scanned ruling visually read, all 7 pages", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04, May 12, 2025", "locator": "p. 7" }, "history": "Later June clarification and August records/deposition orders define the actual discovery process; December compliance order followed. AC 49493 was dismissed on procedural grounds, not by a merits affirmance. See CT-003 through CT-006.", "sources": [ { "label": "Original May memorandum", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "type": "Original court-hosted scanned memorandum; 7 pages", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-104.04-2025-05-12-memorandum.pdf", "sha256": "a62adb7749c0943e5407db81ebb5de6bcb89394d5ccf5fec03cd83a81e7fc7f6" }, { "label": "Companion May order", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30000643", "type": "Original court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-104.03-2025-05-12-order.pdf", "sha256": "6c10c6b23dd1c3f24a3d97b8ebb475b5f602864e40d56514cce256d95ecdf746" }, { "label": "Official trial docket — retrieved Nov. 5, 2026", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Official docket, filing date/return date distinguished" }, { "label": "Related federal complaint — brand identification only", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "Filed party pleading; Doc. 1 ¶ 19, allegations only" } ] }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Original court-hosted ruling read; source copy preserved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Official trial and appellate dockets reviewed to stated cutoff; no citator clearance", "historyReview": "Official trial/appellate dockets reviewed", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The state rulings do not name an EHR. The related federal complaint in Colker v. Callis, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly identifies DrChrono as Peak Wellness’s records platform. This tag relies on that related party pleading, not a state-court finding about the software or its features.", "platformEvidenceType": "Related-case party pleading; not named in state ruling", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Official docket history reviewed; no citator clearance", "coverage": "Original trial orders and incorporated records proposal; official trial and appellate dockets retrieved Nov. 5, 2026. The appellate site reports data through the previous business day. The March 17 party notice was reviewed only on its cover page.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-03-17", "events": [ { "date": "2024-07-16", "description": "Official trial docket lists complaint filing, with a distinct July 23 return date.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "100.31 / docket header" }, { "date": "2025-05-12", "description": "Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04; see also 104.03" }, { "date": "2025-06-27", "description": "Clarification characterizes bill of discovery as an independent equitable action and directs proposed schedules.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01" }, { "date": "2025-07-30", "description": "Proposed schedule rejected; applications for specific deposition and records orders required for hearing.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "document": "124.01" }, { "date": "2025-08-12", "description": "Records proposal approved; separate deposition proposal rejected for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 / 129.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-11", "description": "Compliance order requires payment records, privilege log, specific objections, and documentation of data sources/search methods; testimony denied without prejudice.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-29", "description": "Defendants filed appeal AC 49493 from the postjudgment enforcement order.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "document": "Appeal opening; trial entry 148.00" }, { "date": "2026-03-04", "description": "Appeal dismissed: untimely as to August judgment and no subject-matter jurisdiction over December postjudgment order; no merits affirmance.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 49493; motion AC 253638" }, { "date": "2026-03-17", "description": "Trial docket lists defendants’ notice of compliance. A party filing is not a judicial finding of complete compliance.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "151.00" } ], "gaps": [ "Trial docket’s last action is March 17, 2026. Appellate docket shows Disposed on March 4, 2026 and lists no certification petition in the displayed field. This is a description of the retrieved dockets, not a comprehensive citator review.", "No later court finding that every requested record was produced was verified. Sealed filings and unlisted or separate proceedings are outside this review." ], "queries": [ "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "id": "CT-003", "title": "Grant v. Colker and Peak Wellness — equitable discovery clarification", "citation": "No. FST-CV24-6068091-S, Entry 118.01 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 27, 2025)", "date": "2025-06-27", "court": "Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford; Judge Colleen Zingaro", "caseType": "Clarification of pre-action discovery procedure", "topics": [ "Bill of discovery", "Equitable discovery", "Scheduling", "Source-date correction" ], "authority": "State trial-court clarification order quoting appellate authorities; not a blanket production mandate", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Described the bill as an independent equitable discovery action, quoting Berger v. Cuomo and related authority, and directed proposed schedules for interrogatories, production, depositions, and objections.", "application": "Separate a procedural path to seek discovery from a particular order compelling records. Counsel can use the cited authorities as starting points for jurisdiction-specific research.", "limits": "The court-hosted order is dated June 27, 2025. Some July 7 reporting quotes this text, but no separate July 7 order appears in the retrieved docket. Later orders rejected a proposed schedule and denied the deposition proposal.", "locator": "Entry 118.01, p. 1; dated heading and final substantive paragraph", "quote": "This action is a Bill of Discovery.", "originalRuling": { "status": "Filed original ruling text and date verified", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01, June 27, 2025", "locator": "p. 1" }, "history": "July 30 Entry 124.01 required applications for specific records/deposition orders. August 12 Entries 129.01/130.01 then gave different outcomes for testimony and records; see CT-004.", "sources": [ { "label": "Original clarification order", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "type": "Original court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-118.01-2025-06-27-clarification.pdf", "sha256": "b224b7e6bff87b01af8e56174bcbad6b29f6eb935bb3a25292818baf6b72e16d" }, { "label": "Later July scheduling/application order", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "type": "Original court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-124.01-2025-07-30-hearing-order.pdf", "sha256": "5a1aa7b30b27856f6e4da2b0d56beb346c20ff33923cb237513ff007ef88343b" }, { "label": "Official trial docket", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Official dated docket entries" }, { "label": "Related federal complaint — brand identification only", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "Filed party pleading; Doc. 1 ¶ 19, allegations only" } ] }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Original court-hosted ruling read; source copy preserved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Official trial and appellate dockets reviewed to stated cutoff; no citator clearance", "historyReview": "Official trial/appellate dockets reviewed", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The state rulings do not name an EHR. The related federal complaint in Colker v. Callis, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly identifies DrChrono as Peak Wellness’s records platform. This tag relies on that related party pleading, not a state-court finding about the software or its features.", "platformEvidenceType": "Related-case party pleading; not named in state ruling", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Official docket history reviewed; no citator clearance", "coverage": "Original trial orders and incorporated records proposal; official trial and appellate dockets retrieved Nov. 5, 2026. The appellate site reports data through the previous business day. The March 17 party notice was reviewed only on its cover page.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-03-17", "events": [ { "date": "2024-07-16", "description": "Official trial docket lists complaint filing, with a distinct July 23 return date.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "100.31 / docket header" }, { "date": "2025-05-12", "description": "Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04; see also 104.03" }, { "date": "2025-06-27", "description": "Clarification characterizes bill of discovery as an independent equitable action and directs proposed schedules.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01" }, { "date": "2025-07-30", "description": "Proposed schedule rejected; applications for specific deposition and records orders required for hearing.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "document": "124.01" }, { "date": "2025-08-12", "description": "Records proposal approved; separate deposition proposal rejected for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 / 129.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-11", "description": "Compliance order requires payment records, privilege log, specific objections, and documentation of data sources/search methods; testimony denied without prejudice.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-29", "description": "Defendants filed appeal AC 49493 from the postjudgment enforcement order.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "document": "Appeal opening; trial entry 148.00" }, { "date": "2026-03-04", "description": "Appeal dismissed: untimely as to August judgment and no subject-matter jurisdiction over December postjudgment order; no merits affirmance.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 49493; motion AC 253638" }, { "date": "2026-03-17", "description": "Trial docket lists defendants’ notice of compliance. A party filing is not a judicial finding of complete compliance.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "151.00" } ], "gaps": [ "Trial docket’s last action is March 17, 2026. Appellate docket shows Disposed on March 4, 2026 and lists no certification petition in the displayed field. This is a description of the retrieved dockets, not a comprehensive citator review.", "No later court finding that every requested record was produced was verified. Sealed filings and unlisted or separate proceedings are outside this review." ], "queries": [ "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "id": "CT-004", "title": "Grant v. Colker and Peak Wellness — records approved, depositions rejected", "citation": "No. FST-CV24-6068091-S, Entries 129.01 and 130.01 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 2025); incorporated proposal 130.00", "date": "2025-08-12", "court": "Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford; Judge David G. Bothwell", "caseType": "Pre-action records-production order and separate deposition denial", "topics": [ "Metadata", "Records production", "Billing records", "Pre-action depositions", "Discovery limits" ], "authority": "State trial-court orders; approved proposal must be read together with the court’s order and later compliance ruling", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Approved the proposed records-request order and its production schedule. The incorporated requests include EHR and billing/payment metadata. A separate order rejected the deposition proposal for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a. The proposal provides for objections, a privilege log, and court resolution of disputes.", "application": "Use as a case-specific example linking the record categories requested to an entered production order. Preserve the requests and the adopting order together; distinguish records from testimony.", "limits": "Not a general entitlement to every requested item despite privilege or objections. No finding that records were altered or incomplete. Original orders are dated/filed Aug. 12; the later appellate order calls the judgment an Aug. 11 judgment, following that day’s hearing.", "locator": "130.01 p. 1; proposal 130.00 PDF pp. 1–2 (schedule), 11 and 22 (EHR/billing metadata requests); 129.01 p. 1", "quote": "The petitioner’s proposed records request order is approved.", "originalRuling": { "status": "Both original orders and incorporated proposal read", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 and 129.01, Aug. 12, 2025", "locator": "p. 1 of each order" }, "history": "December 11 compliance order adds specific search/withholding requirements. The appeal was dismissed as untimely insofar as it challenged the August judgment; that is not an appellate merits endorsement.", "sources": [ { "label": "Original records order", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "type": "Original court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-130.01-2025-08-12-records-order.pdf", "sha256": "37fae249b790c00d58ab9bafc906f994cf17fe0eef1fa6bd1e7df527279f69e0" }, { "label": "Approved records proposal and requests", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30627152", "type": "Party proposal expressly approved by Entry 130.01; not an independent ruling", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-130.00-2025-08-07-records-proposal.pdf", "sha256": "71b6eba2aff9aad2126b0b1297238c383c82b07e28757adedd7112672291604a" }, { "label": "Original deposition denial", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675641", "type": "Original court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-129.01-2025-08-12-depositions.pdf", "sha256": "044cd6dcad15d0ce679c1ce8e186b20612355633567a34a3f5d96072900375f6" }, { "label": "Official trial docket", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Official docket" }, { "label": "Related federal complaint — brand identification only", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "Filed party pleading; Doc. 1 ¶ 19, allegations only" } ] }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Original court-hosted ruling read; source copy preserved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Official trial and appellate dockets reviewed to stated cutoff; no citator clearance", "historyReview": "Official trial/appellate dockets reviewed", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The state rulings do not name an EHR. The related federal complaint in Colker v. Callis, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly identifies DrChrono as Peak Wellness’s records platform. This tag relies on that related party pleading, not a state-court finding about the software or its features.", "platformEvidenceType": "Related-case party pleading; not named in state ruling", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Official docket history reviewed; no citator clearance", "coverage": "Original trial orders and incorporated records proposal; official trial and appellate dockets retrieved Nov. 5, 2026. The appellate site reports data through the previous business day. The March 17 party notice was reviewed only on its cover page.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-03-17", "events": [ { "date": "2024-07-16", "description": "Official trial docket lists complaint filing, with a distinct July 23 return date.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "100.31 / docket header" }, { "date": "2025-05-12", "description": "Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04; see also 104.03" }, { "date": "2025-06-27", "description": "Clarification characterizes bill of discovery as an independent equitable action and directs proposed schedules.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01" }, { "date": "2025-07-30", "description": "Proposed schedule rejected; applications for specific deposition and records orders required for hearing.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "document": "124.01" }, { "date": "2025-08-12", "description": "Records proposal approved; separate deposition proposal rejected for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 / 129.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-11", "description": "Compliance order requires payment records, privilege log, specific objections, and documentation of data sources/search methods; testimony denied without prejudice.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-29", "description": "Defendants filed appeal AC 49493 from the postjudgment enforcement order.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "document": "Appeal opening; trial entry 148.00" }, { "date": "2026-03-04", "description": "Appeal dismissed: untimely as to August judgment and no subject-matter jurisdiction over December postjudgment order; no merits affirmance.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 49493; motion AC 253638" }, { "date": "2026-03-17", "description": "Trial docket lists defendants’ notice of compliance. A party filing is not a judicial finding of complete compliance.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "151.00" } ], "gaps": [ "Trial docket’s last action is March 17, 2026. Appellate docket shows Disposed on March 4, 2026 and lists no certification petition in the displayed field. This is a description of the retrieved dockets, not a comprehensive citator review.", "No later court finding that every requested record was produced was verified. Sealed filings and unlisted or separate proceedings are outside this review." ], "queries": [ "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "id": "CT-005", "title": "Grant v. Colker and Peak Wellness — documented search efforts and compliance", "citation": "No. FST-CV24-6068091-S, Entry 139.01 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 11, 2025)", "date": "2025-12-11", "court": "Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford; Judge David G. Bothwell", "caseType": "Postjudgment enforcement of medical-record/billing discovery", "topics": [ "Search methodology", "Storage locations", "Data sources", "Privilege log", "Specific objections", "Compliance" ], "authority": "State trial-court compliance order; later appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to this order", "direction": "Supportive", "holding": "Granted compliance relief requiring payer-identifying payment records, a privilege log, specific objections identifying withholding, and written documentation of storage locations/data sources searched, methods used, responsive records located, and withholding. Testimony was denied without prejudice to renewal on a showing of noncompliance.", "application": "A concrete Connecticut example supporting questions about the completeness of a search and what was withheld. EMRCheck can organize the source inventory, search-method evidence, production, and stated limitations for counsel.", "limits": "Case-specific relief, not a holding that all EHR databases must be searched in every case. No merits finding of tampering. The later notice asserting compliance is a party filing, not a judicial determination that the production was complete.", "locator": "Entry 139.01 p. 1, numbered orders 1–5; compliance deadline Jan. 12, 2026", "quote": "all storage locations and data sources searched", "originalRuling": { "status": "Original one-page ruling text visually verified", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01, Dec. 11, 2025", "locator": "numbered paragraph 4" }, "history": "AC 49493, filed Dec. 29, 2025, was dismissed March 4, 2026 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to this postjudgment order. Trial docket Entry 151.00 lists a March 17 notice of compliance; no later judicial completeness finding verified.", "sources": [ { "label": "Original compliance order", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "type": "Original court-hosted ruling", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-139.01-2025-12-11-compliance.pdf", "sha256": "79c05536bc207e305e7b7458162b4c5c960619b67db09e2f355dc07ff9ec1574" }, { "label": "Original appellate dismissal", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "type": "Original court-hosted appellate order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-AC49493-2026-03-04-dismissal.pdf", "sha256": "1d336c6c237c6315b61a6ee799cd2a39769fade879a09ce3b6b0d204f7dc6608" }, { "label": "Official appellate docket — status Disposed", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "type": "Official appellate docket; certification field has no listed petition" }, { "label": "Official trial docket — March 17 notice", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Official docket; notice is party filing" }, { "label": "Related federal complaint — brand identification only", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "Filed party pleading; Doc. 1 ¶ 19, allegations only" } ] }, { "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Original court-hosted ruling read; source copy preserved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Official trial and appellate dockets reviewed to stated cutoff; no citator clearance", "historyReview": "Official trial/appellate dockets reviewed", "jurisdiction": "Connecticut", "track": "Malpractice and records", "kind": "Judicial decision", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "platformStatus": "The state rulings do not name an EHR. The related federal complaint in Colker v. Callis, Doc. 1 ¶ 19 (p. 4), expressly identifies DrChrono as Peak Wellness’s records platform. This tag relies on that related party pleading, not a state-court finding about the software or its features.", "platformEvidenceType": "Related-case party pleading; not named in state ruling", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Official docket history reviewed; no citator clearance", "coverage": "Original trial orders and incorporated records proposal; official trial and appellate dockets retrieved Nov. 5, 2026. The appellate site reports data through the previous business day. The March 17 party notice was reviewed only on its cover page.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-03-17", "events": [ { "date": "2024-07-16", "description": "Official trial docket lists complaint filing, with a distinct July 23 return date.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "100.31 / docket header" }, { "date": "2025-05-12", "description": "Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction denied.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30001247", "document": "104.04; see also 104.03" }, { "date": "2025-06-27", "description": "Clarification characterizes bill of discovery as an independent equitable action and directs proposed schedules.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30376051", "document": "118.01" }, { "date": "2025-07-30", "description": "Proposed schedule rejected; applications for specific deposition and records orders required for hearing.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30567023", "document": "124.01" }, { "date": "2025-08-12", "description": "Records proposal approved; separate deposition proposal rejected for insufficient evidence under § 52-156a.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=30675681", "document": "130.01 / 129.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-11", "description": "Compliance order requires payment records, privilege log, specific objections, and documentation of data sources/search methods; testimony denied without prejudice.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=31558813", "document": "139.01" }, { "date": "2025-12-29", "description": "Defendants filed appeal AC 49493 from the postjudgment enforcement order.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "document": "Appeal opening; trial entry 148.00" }, { "date": "2026-03-04", "description": "Appeal dismissed: untimely as to August judgment and no subject-matter jurisdiction over December postjudgment order; no merits affirmance.", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 49493; motion AC 253638" }, { "date": "2026-03-17", "description": "Trial docket lists defendants’ notice of compliance. A party filing is not a judicial finding of complete compliance.", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "document": "151.00" } ], "gaps": [ "Trial docket’s last action is March 17, 2026. Appellate docket shows Disposed on March 4, 2026 and lists no certification petition in the displayed field. This is a description of the retrieved dockets, not a comprehensive citator review.", "No later court finding that every requested record was produced was verified. Sealed filings and unlisted or separate proceedings are outside this review." ], "queries": [ "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal" ] }, "id": "CT-006", "title": "Grant v. Colker — appeal dismissed on timing and jurisdiction grounds", "citation": "AC 49493, order on motion AC 253638 (Conn. App. Ct. Mar. 4, 2026); trial docket Entry 150.00", "date": "2026-03-04", "court": "Connecticut Appellate Court", "caseType": "Appealability and timeliness in the records-discovery proceeding", "topics": [ "Later history", "Appeal dismissed", "Timeliness", "Appellate jurisdiction", "Not merits affirmance" ], "authority": "Appellate procedural order; no reported merits opinion or approval of the underlying factual allegations", "direction": "Mixed", "holding": "Dismissed the appeal as untimely to the extent it challenged the August 11, 2025 judgment, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as to the December 11 postjudgment order. The order cites Halladay v. Commissioner of Correction, 340 Conn. 52 (2021).", "application": "Record the actual basis for the appellate disposition. A procedural dismissal cannot be presented as an appellate endorsement of a discovery order’s reasoning or of alleged record misconduct.", "limits": "Does not affirm metadata-access rights on the merits. The displayed appellate docket has no listed certification petition; that observation is limited to the official snapshot retrieved Nov. 5, 2026.", "locator": "Original appellate order p. 1, paragraph immediately following “Order: Granted”", "quote": "The appeal is dismissed as untimely", "originalRuling": { "status": "Original appellate order text and trial-file copy verified", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "document": "AC 253638 in AC 49493, March 4, 2026", "locator": "p. 1" }, "history": "Official appellate docket shows Disposed, March 4, 2026, with no listed certification petition in its displayed field. The trial docket subsequently lists a March 17 notice of compliance, not a court finding of complete production.", "sources": [ { "label": "Original appellate order", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentDisplayer.aspx?AppId=2&DocId=2H5NZccTX1RvabPDHWZN%2fw%3d%3d", "type": "Original appellate court-hosted order", "localFile": "sources/CT-Grant-AC49493-2026-03-04-dismissal.pdf", "sha256": "1d336c6c237c6315b61a6ee799cd2a39769fade879a09ce3b6b0d204f7dc6608" }, { "label": "Same appellate order in official trial file", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=32122784", "type": "Court-hosted scanned copy; visually reviewed" }, { "label": "Official appellate docket — current snapshot", "url": "https://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=105275&Type=AppealNo", "type": "Official appellate docket, retrieved Nov. 5, 2026" }, { "label": "Official trial docket", "url": "https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FSTCV246068091S", "type": "Official dated docket entries" }, { "label": "Related federal complaint — brand identification only", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/54/27/b0537e0c4169b4e14b6d74648615/compl-w-civil-cover-sht-exhs-efiled.pdf", "type": "Filed party pleading; Doc. 1 ¶ 19, allegations only" } ] }, { "id": "PA-002", "title": "United States v. Anand — suppression disposition (docket text only)", "citation": "No. 2:19-cr-00518-CFK, ECF 427 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 5, 2024), denying ECF 406", "date": "2024-09-05", "court": "U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Judge Chad F. Kenney", "jurisdiction": "Pennsylvania", "track": "Other records litigation", "kind": "Docket record", "caseType": "Criminal suppression/Franks request; original order still unavailable in free sources", "platforms": [], "platformStatus": "The ECF 427 docket text does not identify an EHR. PA-001 separately verifies a later DrChrono-specific post-conviction request; do not infer the complete scope of motion 406 from the earlier 2023 motion 321.", "topics": [ "Suppression", "Franks hearing", "Verified docket outcome", "Original unavailable", "Research gap" ], "authority": "Docket entry reproduced by CourtListener, not the original ruling or a merits-reasoning precedent", "direction": "Context", "reviewedOn": "2026-11-05", "reviewStatus": "Exact docket-entry text read; original order PDF not retrieved", "laterHistoryStatus": "Denial independently reported in later original opinion; appellate merits history remains incomplete", "historyReview": "Targeted, incomplete", "holding": "The dated docket entry states that ECF 406, a motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing, was denied as to Neil K. Anand. The entry identifies Judge Kenney and a September 5, 2024 filing. This verifies the reported outcome, not the court’s reasoning.", "application": "Use the exact docket and motion numbers to retrieve or monitor the missing original. Keep docket verification distinct from an analyzed suppression holding.", "limits": "CourtListener explicitly states the PDF is not in RECAP. The court document link requests PACER sign-in. Under the user’s free-source constraint, the original remains unreviewed; no rationale, record-integrity finding, or successful suppression claim is attributed to it.", "locator": "CourtListener ECF 427 detail: “Description” and availability notice; ECF 406 detail dates motion Aug. 13, 2024; later Doc. 682 p. 6", "quote": "MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND REQUEST FOR A FRANKS HEARING 406 IS DENIED", "originalRuling": { "status": "NOT RETRIEVED — original requires PACER sign-in; no free RECAP copy located", "url": "https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/153022282221?caseid=561627", "document": "427; PACER case ID 561627, document ID 153022282221", "locator": "Unavailable in this free-source pass" }, "history": "September 22, 2025 original Doc. 682 reports the denial and denies permission for an interlocutory appeal under the cited civil statute. September 28, 2026 Doc. 833 describes criminal appeals 25-2804/25-2902 as pending. No later merits resolution of suppression was verified.", "historyCheck": { "checkedOn": "2026-11-05", "status": "Targeted, incomplete", "coverage": "Exact ECF 427 and 406 public docket pages; original later Docs. 682 and 833; public appeal snapshots and targeted official-opinion searches.", "latestVerifiedDate": "2026-09-28", "events": [ { "date": "2024-08-13", "description": "Docket lists ECF 406 motion to suppress and for Franks hearing; underlying motion not retrieved.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/406/united-states-v-anand/", "document": "406 (docket only)" }, { "date": "2024-09-05", "description": "Docket text reports ECF 406 denied; original ECF 427 not available in RECAP.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/427/united-states-v-anand/", "document": "427 (docket only)" }, { "date": "2025-09-22", "description": "Original later memorandum reports the suppression denial and denies requested interlocutory-appeal permission.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-14.pdf", "document": "682 p. 6" }, { "date": "2026-09-28", "description": "Original later opinion describes criminal appeals 25-2804/25-2902 as pending; see PA-001.", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "document": "833 p. 1" } ], "gaps": [ "Original ECF 427, any accompanying suppression reasoning or relevant hearing transcript, and current complete appellate dockets remain unverified.", "The RECAP case page was updated Oct. 30, 2026 and lists last known filing Oct. 23; that metadata is not a full-docket or appellate-merits clearance." ], "queries": [ "CourtListener docketNumber:19-cr-00518 AND court_id:paed", "CourtListener exact ECF 427 and ECF 406 document pages", "\"Neil Anand\" appeal opinion restricted to ca3.uscourts.gov" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "Exact suppression docket entry — original PDF absent", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/427/united-states-v-anand/", "type": "CourtListener RECAP docket text; not original order" }, { "label": "Underlying motion entry — ECF 406", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/406/united-states-v-anand/", "type": "CourtListener docket text; not motion text" }, { "label": "Court document link — PACER sign-in required", "url": "https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/153022282221?caseid=561627", "type": "Official court retrieval URL; not read as an order" }, { "label": "Original later opinion reporting denial", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-14.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion via GovInfo", "localFile": "sources/Anand-682-2025-09-22-history.pdf", "sha256": "5cc06f49bcc6bb860d4acc37e31541991ab67256509f62f6b79c63dad0184cf9" }, { "label": "Original later opinion — pending appeals", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "type": "Original court opinion via GovInfo", "localFile": "sources/Anand-833-2026-09-28-analytics.pdf", "sha256": "40b3deb34ba1289a87390091d5274a4ca0388619705528ae4b45fcf41bfa3997" } ] } ], "leads": [ { "id": "LEAD-001", "title": "United States v. Neil K. Anand — original suppression order ECF 427", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "status": "Docket disposition verified in PA-002; original suppression reasoning remains a lead", "why": "Exact public docket identifies Sept. 5, 2024 ECF 427 as denying Aug. 13, 2024 motion 406. CourtListener has no PDF; the official court link redirects to PACER sign-in. Later original Doc. 682 corroborates the denial. The original 2023 motion 321 is not the motion number identified in ECF 427.", "next": "Continue free-source monitoring for ECF 427 or a freely released appellate appendix/transcript. Preserve the distinction between verified docket outcome and unreviewed reasoning; do not mix civil Anand cases, FOIA cases, or codefendants’ outcomes.", "source": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/427/united-states-v-anand/", "sources": [ { "label": "Exact ECF 427 entry", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16243689/427/united-states-v-anand/", "type": "Docket text; original absent" }, { "label": "Official document retrieval location", "url": "https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/153022282221?caseid=561627", "type": "PACER sign-in required" }, { "label": "Original opinion reporting suppression denial", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-14.pdf", "type": "Doc. 682 p. 6" }, { "label": "Original post-trial history memorandum", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-17.pdf", "type": "Doc. 715 p. 1" }, { "label": "Verified DrChrono-specific later ruling", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cr-00518-31.pdf", "type": "Doc. 833 p. 2" }, { "label": "Third-party filed-motion copy", "url": "https://youarewithinthenorms.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/coley-reynolds-motion-for-Franks-Hearing-2.pdf", "type": "Party motion; not a ruling" } ] }, { "id": "LEAD-002", "title": "United States ex rel. Worthy v. Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems", "platforms": [ "Allscripts", "MEDITECH" ], "status": "Lead only — opinion located, holding not briefed", "why": "The located 2017 opinion discusses Allscripts and MEDITECH in a billing/False Claims Act setting. It has not been analyzed for a usable audit-trail holding.", "next": "Read the full opinion and distinguish pleaded facts from findings and disposition.", "source": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/2%3A2014cv00184/46333/110/" }, { "id": "LEAD-003", "title": "Gilbert v. Highland Hospital", "platforms": [], "status": "Lead only — primary opinion located", "why": "Frequently cited in the reviewed New York audit-trail opinions; a separate case brief and platform identification are still needed.", "next": "Read the original opinion, verify the precise discovery ruling and subsequent appellate treatment, and identify any expressly named system.", "source": "https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_26147.htm" }, { "id": "LEAD-004", "title": "Heinrich v. State of New York", "platforms": [], "status": "Lead only — primary opinion located", "why": "A 2021 Court of Claims opinion discusses audit disclosure and earlier New York cases.", "next": "Verify the requested access protocol, ruling, platform, and later history.", "source": "https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_21263.htm" }, { "id": "EXCLUDED-001", "title": "DatRec, LLC v. DrChrono, Inc.", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "status": "Excluded from precedent bank — patent dispute", "why": "The public docket identifies a patent case and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. This is not an audit-trail malpractice ruling.", "next": "Retain only as an exclusion log so a company-name hit is not mistaken for relevant precedent.", "source": "https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1%3A2021cv00413/75000" }, { "id": "EXCLUDED-002", "title": "Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "status": "Excluded from precedent bank — employment arbitration", "why": "The retrieved district-court record concerns employment arbitration rather than EHR record integrity or medical malpractice.", "next": "Do not treat the vendor name alone as substantive EHR relevance.", "source": "https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2024cv00812/784509/16/" }, { "id": "EXCLUDED-003", "title": "Decapolis Systems, LLC v. DrChrono Inc.", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "status": "Excluded from EHR evidence precedent bank — patent dispute", "why": "The located docket identifies W.D. Texas No. 6:21-cv-00421 as a patent case. No audit-trail or malpractice holding was verified.", "next": "Retain exclusion to prevent a vendor-name search hit from being presented as evidence-integrity precedent.", "source": "https://www.law360.com/cases/60886593c1d73f014ab995df" }, { "id": "EXCLUDED-004", "title": "Advanced Interventional Pain & Diagnostics of Western Arkansas, LLC v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc.", "platforms": [ "ModMed" ], "status": "Excluded from EHR evidence precedent bank — unsolicited-fax/TCPA case", "why": "The public filing docket identifies S.D. Florida No. 9:20-cv-82238, a TCPA complaint with a fax exhibit. The plaintiff’s Arkansas name does not make it an Arkansas malpractice decision. No relevant substantive ruling was verified.", "next": "Revisit only for an expressly identified marketing-law question; do not count as malpractice or audit-trail authority.", "source": "https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/9%3A2020cv82238/582746" } ], "researchLog": { "date": "2026-11-05", "method": "Public web searches, court/government sources, reprinted original opinions, and official vendor documentation. Relevant holdings, dispositions, and platform passages were read; search snippets alone were not used to create a reviewed judicial holding. Expansion 1.1 separately traces filed rulings, express brand-identification passages, dated docket snapshots, and later original opinions. Case-name matching, scheduled hearings, settlement terms, and index closure labels are not treated as adjudicated merits.", "queries": [ "\"Modernizing Medicine\" \"audit trail\" court", "\"ModMed\" \"medical malpractice\" court", "\"DrChrono\" \"audit trail\" court", "\"Dr Chrono\" lawsuit medical records", "\"Cerner\" \"audit trail\" court opinion", "\"Epic\" \"audit trail\" malpractice court opinion", "\"Modernizing Medicine\" site:justice.gov settlement 2022", "\"drchrono\" site:law.justia.com", "\"drchrono\" site:govinfo.gov", "\"Lowe\" \"20-2270\" \"2022\" opinion", "\"Meherg\" \"231102\" opinion", "\"Borum\" \"3014487\"", "\"Anand\" \"DrChrono\" opinion", "\"DrChrono\" \"audit log\" site:support.drchrono.com", "\"MEDITECH\" \"audit trail\" court opinion", "\"Allscripts\" \"audit trail\" court opinion", "site:modmed.com \"EHI\" \"export\" \"EMA\"", "\"Modernizing Medicine\" \"Valley Eye\"", "\"Valley Eye\" \"Modernizing\" appeal", "\"Cavallaro-Kearins\" \"preliminary\" order pdf", "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"Modernizing\" court order appeal", "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"22-cv-81252\"", "\"Tahoe Forest\" \"81252\" settlement", "\"DrChrono\" lawsuit court judgment -patent", "\"Dr Chrono\" court medical records lawsuit", "\"Colker\" \"Callis\" \"711\" order dismiss", "\"Colker\" \"Callis\" \"90\" November 2026 objection", "\"Anand\" \"19-cr-518\" opinion", "\"Anand\" \"Franks\" \"Kenney\"", "\"Anand\" \"September 5, 2024\" suppress", "\"Anand\" \"DrChrono\" suppression opinion", "\"Neil Anand\" \"25-2902\" decision court", "\"Neil Anand\" \"25-2804\" \"2026\" appeal", "\"Electronic Medical Assistant\" court lawsuit", "\"ModMed\" malpractice court discovery", "\"Modernizing Medicine\" \"Advanced Interventional\" order", "\"2:17-cv-00179\" Modernizing docket", "\"Modernizing Medicine\" \"Long\" \"Cane\" dismissal settlement 2023", "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2023\" remand settlement", "\"Lowe\" \"Cerner\" \"2024\" trial", "Official trial docket FST-CV24-6068091-S", "Official appellate docket AC 49493", "\"Grant\" \"Colker\" \"49493\"", "\"Grant v. Colker\" \"2026\" appeal", "CourtListener docketNumber:19-cr-00518 AND court_id:paed", "CourtListener ECF 427 and 406", "\"Anand\" \"427\" \"September 5, 2024\" suppression", "\"Neil Anand\" appeal opinion restricted to ca3.uscourts.gov" ], "excludedSources": "Consumer reviews, vendor marketing commentary, law-firm summaries, and generated case summaries were used at most as leads, not as substitutes for the underlying holding.", "retrievalLimitations": "Web/browser access failed on some court pages. Direct authorized read-only downloads retrieved the official Connecticut trial/appellate sources and selected GovInfo PDFs. RECAP identifies Anand ECF 427 but has no PDF, and the court link requires PACER sign-in. Later CourtListener requests returned empty HTTP 202 responses. No paid sources or private credentials were used.", "expansion": { "version": "1.2", "date": "2026-11-05", "addedIds": [ "CT-002", "CT-003", "CT-004", "CT-005", "CT-006", "PA-002" ], "updatedIds": [ "CT-001", "PA-001", "LEAD-001" ], "resolvedLeadIds": [ "LEAD-005" ], "verificationScope": "Original Connecticut orders, official trial/appellate docket snapshots, and exact Anand docket text. Free public sources only; no paid citator clearance.", "sourceCorrections": [ "Grant complaint filed July 16, 2024; July 23 is the return date.", "The clarification order is June 27, 2025; July 7 reporting quoted that text.", "August production/deposition orders are dated Aug. 12; the appellate dismissal refers to the Aug. 11 judgment.", "AC 49493 dismissed for timing/jurisdiction, not affirmed on the merits.", "Anand ECF 427 denied ECF 406, not simply the earlier 2023 motion 321." ] }, "expansionArchive": [ { "version": "1.1", "date": "2026-11-05", "addedIds": [ "MA-001", "CA-007", "CT-001", "PA-001", "VA-002", "SETTLE-001" ], "updatedIds": [ "VA-001", "ENF-001", "LEAD-001" ], "newLeadIds": [ "LEAD-005" ], "newExclusionIds": [ "EXCLUDED-003", "EXCLUDED-004" ], "verificationScope": "Targeted public-source research; no paid citator clearance or complete live docket certification.", "sourceCorrections": [ "Tahoe’s August 2022 transfer order was issued by E.D. California, despite Florida labels in some indexes.", "Anand acquittal entries for codefendants are not his verdict.", "A scheduled settlement approval hearing is not final approval." ] } ] }, "resolvedLeads": [ { "id": "LEAD-005", "title": "Grant v. Colker and Peak Wellness — Connecticut bill of discovery", "platforms": [ "DrChrono" ], "status": "Resolved into verified state-court records CT-002 through CT-006", "why": "Original federal rulings in CT-001 identify state docket FST-CV24-6068091-S and a request for medical records/metadata. The related filed complaint names DrChrono. This is not itself a verified state discovery holding.", "next": "Retrieve the Connecticut Superior Court docket and original rulings, including dismissal/discovery orders and appeals. The two federal rulings describe the initial filing date differently; verify against the state docket.", "source": "https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0711-90=", "resolvedOn": "2026-11-05", "recordIds": [ "CT-002", "CT-003", "CT-004", "CT-005", "CT-006" ] } ] }