In response to Epic Systems’ motion, Particle Health filed a motion to dismiss a court complaint that the electronic health records giant violated a federal antitrust law.

Epic has denied any wrongdoing and is committed to protecting patient privacy, saying in a statement: Healthcare IT News that it would “vigorously defend itself against Particle’s baseless claims.”

“This case concerns Epic’s unlawful and widespread campaign to eliminate competition in the payment platform market,” Particle said in its preliminary statement Thursday.

The data sharing and analytics company vehemently claims that Epic acted intentionally, saying at one point that it “sufficiently alleges actual malice” by the EHR vendor against the company to prevent competition in the payer interoperability market.

Epic said last month in its motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit that the case – Particle HealthInc. v. Epic Systems Corporation – was in retaliation for protecting patient privacy.

The EHR vendor believed that Particle had allowed some customers to obtain confidential patient records under the guise of the Carequality health information exchange network and, upon learning of this, filed a dispute with the HIE.

According to a statement from Carequality in October, this dispute ultimately led to differing opinions about the connection rules for data sharing:

“This claim highlighted differences in the interpretation of certain Carequality technical requirements,” the organization said. “With the assistance of a subject matter expert, it was demonstrated that Particle Health was not using a ‘masking gateway’.”

Particle terminated its contracts with three specific organizations that were separate from Carequality for at least 12 months. During the media call, Epic said the Carequality dispute verdict confirmed that the company and its customers took appropriate measures to protect patient privacy.

The analytics firm said that “contrary to Epic’s conclusive claims,” ​​it plausibly substantiates its claims that Epic used “various illegal means that continue to this day,” including:

1. “Threaten Particle’s customers unless they agree to stop working with Particle.”
2. “Initiating and then publicly prosecuting an unfounded industry dispute with the aim of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about Particle.”
3. “Making defamatory statements repeatedly.”

“We remain confident that the case has merit and that our claims will survive the motion,” a Particle spokesperson said via email Thursday along with the filed document outlining Epic’s basis for the dismissal point by point enters.

“Particle’s 78-page complaint describes step by step how a monopolist, desperate for control, is willing to destroy an innovator with an objectively better product in order to put more money in its pocket,” the company said the new court filing.

“Epic may seek to defend its claims in due course, but sees no basis to dismiss the complaint now. The application should be rejected.”

“Particle’s claims are inconsistent with reality,” an Epic spokesperson said Healthcare IT News via email in response on Friday. “Epic and its healthcare organization customers will not stand idly by as patient health information is misused under the guise of patient care.”

Andrea Fox is managing editor of Healthcare IT News.
Email: [email protected]
Healthcare IT News is a publication of HIMSS Media.