Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (2026)
Violations related to patient health care records
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
146.84(1)(a)(a) A custodian of records incurs no liability under par. (bm) for the release of records in accordance with s. 146.82 or 146.83 while acting in good faith.
146.84(1)(b)(b) Any person, including the state or any political subdivision of the state, who violates s. 146.82 or 146.83 in a manner that is knowing and willful shall be liable to any person injured as a result of the violation for actual damages to that person, exemplary damages of not more than $25,000 and costs and reasonable actual attorney fees.
146.84(1)(bm)(bm) Any person, including the state or any political subdivision of the state, who negligently violates s. 146.82 or 146.83 shall be liable to any person injured as a result of the violation for actual damages to that person, exemplary damages of not more than $1,000 and costs and reasonable actual attorney fees.
146.84(1)(c)(c) An individual may bring an action to enjoin any violation of s. 146.82 or 146.83 or to compel compliance with s. 146.82 or 146.83 and may, in the same action, seek damages as provided in this subsection.
146.84(2)(a)(a) Whoever does any of the following may be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9 months or both:
146.84(2)(a)1.1. Requests or obtains confidential information under s. 146.82 or 146.83 (1c) or (3f) under false pretenses.
146.84(2)(a)2.2. Discloses confidential information with knowledge that the disclosure is unlawful and is not reasonably necessary to protect another from harm.
146.84(2)(b)(b) Whoever negligently discloses confidential information in violation of s. 146.82 is subject to a forfeiture of not more than $1,000 for each violation.
146.84(2)(c)(c) Whoever intentionally discloses confidential information in violation of s. 146.82, knowing that the information is confidential, and discloses the information for pecuniary gain may be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned not more than 3 years and 6 months, or both.
146.84(3)(3) Discipline of employees. Any person employed by the state or any political subdivision of the state who violates s. 146.82 or 146.83, except a health care provider that negligently violates s. 153.50 (6) (c), may be discharged or suspended without pay.
146.84(4)(a)(a) Violations by a nursing facility, as defined under s. 49.498 (1) (i), of the right of a resident of the nursing facility to confidentiality of his or her patient health care records.
146.84(4)(b)(b) Violations by a nursing home, as defined under s. 50.01 (3), of the right of a resident of the nursing home to confidentiality of his or her patient health care records.
146.84 AnnotationSub. (1) (b) does not preclude certification of a class action in a suit to recover unreasonable fees charged for copies of health care records. Cruz v. All Saints Healthcare System, Inc., 2001 WI App 67, 242 Wis. 2d 432, 625 N.W.2d 344, 00-1473.
146.84 AnnotationSub. (1) (c) specifies that only “an individual” may sue to enjoin a violation of s. 146.82 or 146.83. Not only do the provisions in ss. 146.82 to 146.84 not create a right to enjoin the planned release of records for entities such as the plaintiff business trade associations’ member businesses, they expressly exclude them from that right by categorically identifying who may be a potential plaintiff. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers, 2021 WI App 35, 398 Wis. 2d 164, 960 N.W.2d 442, 20-2081.
146.84 AnnotationAffirmed on other grounds. 2022 WI 38, 401 Wis. 2d 699, 977 N.W.2d 374, 20-2081.
146.84 AnnotationSub. (1) (b) provides that “any person” may be held liable for knowingly and willfully violating the provisions of s. 146.83. However, the text of s. 146.83 (3f) (b) regulates only those charges made by health care providers. Therefore, only a health care provider that charges more than the fees permissible under s. 146.83 (3f) (b) would fall within the parameters of both sub. (1) (b) and s. 146.83 (3f) (b). Although sub. (1) (b) refers to “any person,” it is not an enforcement mechanism solely for s. 146.83. It also relates to violations of other statutes. Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, 2021 WI 86, 399 Wis. 2d 599, 967 N.W.2d 21, 19-2034.
146.84 AnnotationDuring the time period when Moya, 2016 WI App 5, was the law—December 1, 2015, through May 3, 2017—a patient’s attorneys were excluded from the fee exemptions under s. 146.83 (3f) (b) 4. and 5. Because the patient’s attorneys were not exempt based on the law at the time, there could be no negligent, willful, or knowing violation under sub. (1) (b) or (bm) for charges issued to them under s. 146.83 (3f) (b) 4. or 5. during that time period. Fotusky v. ProHealth Care, Inc., 2023 WI App 19, 407 Wis. 2d 554, 991 N.W.2d 502, 21-1395.
146.84 AnnotationWisconsin courts have applied the two-year limitations period under s. 893.93 (2) (a) to actions that principally benefit the public at large, a “statute penalty,” and the six-year limitations period under s. 893.93 (1) (a) to actions that principally benefit the plaintiff at issue. Because a claim under s. 146.83 (3f) (b) is primarily private in nature and does not result in a statute penalty for the public’s benefit, the six-year limitations period of s. 893.93 (1) (a) applies. Although sub. (1) (b) and (bm) authorize exemplary damages, what matters is who, on balance, the cause of action benefits—the private individual or the general public. Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 989 F.3d 513 (2021).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, 2021 WI 86 (Wis. 2021).
Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, 2021 WI 86 (Wis. 2021). “001 (9), which expressly states that when construing legislative requirements found in all statutes, the legislature's requirements apply with equal force to the acts of agents.”
Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In re Ortiz), 477 B.R. 714 (E.D. Wis. 2012). “They bring their claims under Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (1), which creates private causes of action for violations of Wis.”
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Hannigan v. Sundby Pharmacy, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Our review of the legislative history of § 146.84, Stats., does not resolve the ambiguity.”
Daphne Smith v. RecordQuest LLC, 989 F.3d 513 (7th Cir. 2021). “The district court also rejected Smith’s reliance on Wis. Stat. §§ 146.84 (1)(b) and 990.001(9).”
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Tony Evers, 2021 WI App 35 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§§ 146.84, 806.04, and 813.01, in the form of an injunction barring planned release of the requested list.”
Smith v. RecordQuest, LLC, 380 F. Supp. 3d 838 (E.D. Wis. 2019). “The plaintiff alleges that RecordQuest either knowingly or negligently charged excessive fees, and that therefore it is liable for damages under the civil cause of action created by Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (1). In addition to alleging a claim under Wis.”
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Tony Evers, 2022 WI 38 (Wis. 2022). “The court of appeals also analyzed the patient health records statutes, noting WMC's concession that Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (1)(c) provides a cause of action only to "an individual," not to WMC or its member businesses.”
Cruz v. All Saints Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2001 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “We believe that given the economic realities of this case, class action may be the only effective means to implement the legislature's intent to provide redress for unreasonable charges in Wis. Stat. § 146.84 . The individual amounts at issue are small and not likely to justify…”
Thomas Fotusky v. ProHealth Care, Inc., 2023 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 146.84 for ProHealth’s purported violations of § 146.”
Szymczak v. Terrace at St. Francis, 2006 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Szymczak's medical records was "knowing and willful" pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (l)(b). I. Background.”
Woznicki v. Erickson, 549 N.W.2d 699 (Wis. 1996). “, Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (1)(c) (health care records); § 71.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1) — 9 cases
State v. Lettice, 556 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Beatriz Banuelos v. Univ. of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Auth., 2021 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
Wall v. Pahl, 2016 WI App 71 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016).
Richard Bloss v. St. Luke's Hosp. of Duluth (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1)(a) — 1 case
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1)(b) — 7 cases
Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, 2021 WI 86 (Wis. 2021). “001 (9), which expressly states that when construing legislative requirements found in all statutes, the legislature's requirements apply with equal force to the acts of agents.”
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Tony Evers, 2021 WI App 35 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§§ 146.84, 806.04, and 813.01, in the form of an injunction barring planned release of the requested list.”
Andrea Townsend v. ChartSwap, LLC, 2020 WI App 79 (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Thomas Fotusky v. ProHealth Care, Inc., 2023 WI App 19 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023). “§ 146.84 for ProHealth’s purported violations of § 146.”
Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (In Re Ortiz), 430 B.R. 523 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2010).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1)(bm) — 1 case
Crosby v. OneTouchPoint Inc (E.D. Wis. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(1)(c) — 2 cases
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Tony Evers, 2021 WI App 35 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§§ 146.84, 806.04, and 813.01, in the form of an injunction barring planned release of the requested list.”
Wisconsin Mfrs. & Com. v. Tony Evers, 2022 WI 38 (Wis. 2022). “The court of appeals also analyzed the patient health records statutes, noting WMC's concession that Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (1)(c) provides a cause of action only to "an individual," not to WMC or its member businesses.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(2) — 3 cases
State v. Lettice, 556 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996).
Korntved v. Advanced Healthcare, SC, 2005 WI App 197 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005).
Hannigan v. Sundby Pharmacy, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Our review of the legislative history of § 146.84, Stats., does not resolve the ambiguity.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(2)(a) — 2 cases
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
Beatriz Banuelos v. Univ. of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Auth., 2021 WI App 70 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(2)(b) — 1 case
Valvree Mosley v. Oakwood Lutheran Senior Ministries (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(b) — 1 case
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(bm) — 1 case
Derrick J. Hammetter v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2021 WI App 53 (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 146.84 claims. We disagree. ¶36 WISCONSIN STAT.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(l)(a) — 1 case
Hannigan v. Sundby Pharmacy, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Our review of the legislative history of § 146.84, Stats., does not resolve the ambiguity.”
— Wis. Stat. § 146.84(l)(b) — 4 cases
Hannigan v. Sundby Pharmacy, Inc., 593 N.W.2d 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “Our review of the legislative history of § 146.84, Stats., does not resolve the ambiguity.”
Cruz v. All Saints Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2001 WI App 67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001). “We believe that given the economic realities of this case, class action may be the only effective means to implement the legislature's intent to provide redress for unreasonable charges in Wis. Stat. § 146.84 . The individual amounts at issue are small and not likely to justify…”
Steinberg v. Jensen, 519 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Szymczak v. Terrace at St. Francis, 2006 WI App 3 (Wis. Ct. App. 2005). “Szymczak's medical records was "knowing and willful" pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 146.84 (l)(b). I. Background.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.