Epic Litigation, Federal Scrutiny, and the Medical Evidence Crisis

 Why Medical Evidence Access Matters

The Social Security Administration describes medical evidence as the cornerstone of disability determinations under the SSDI and SSI programs (Social Security Administration [SSA]). Claimants are responsible for providing evidence that establishes the existence and severity of their impairments (SSA). Appointed representatives must act with reasonable diligence and promptness to obtain and submit all known evidence relevant to the disability determination (SSA, 2026). Federal health privacy protections separately give patients a broad right to access information maintained in designated record sets, including medical, billing, claims, laboratory, and case-management records (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]). Federal information-blocking rules also address practices by healthcare providers, certified health IT developers, and health-information networks that are likely to interfere with the access, exchange, or use of electronic health information unless an exception applies (Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology [ASTP/ONC], 2026). Together, these requirements demonstrate why a disability claim can be undermined when medical information exists but cannot reach the claimant, representative, or adjudicator in a complete and usable form (SSA; HHS).

Disclosure of ACRD’s Relationship With AADJ

The American Association for Disability Justice is ACRD’s sister organization. ACRD focuses on strengthening the work of disability representatives through education, technology, professional development, and practice resources, while AADJ focuses on advancing the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities and their families (Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled [ACRD]; American Association for Disability Justice [AADJ]). The two organizations share an interest in ensuring that disabled individuals can obtain the medical evidence needed to navigate benefits and other complex systems (ACRD; AADJ). AADJ is also the lead organizational plaintiff in one of the pending cases discussed in this article (Justia, 2026a). That relationship is disclosed so readers can evaluate the article with full knowledge of ACRD’s connection to the litigation. The descriptions that follow rely on public court records, agency materials, company statements, and attributed reporting, and allegations are identified as allegations rather than established facts.

The Reported FTC Investigation

Reuters reported on August 14, 2026, that the Federal Trade Commission is conducting an antitrust investigation into Epic Systems (Godoy, 2026). According to Reuters, the FTC sent investigative demands to healthcare technology participants concerning the way Epic grants or withholds access to health data and interoperability services (Godoy, 2026). STAT separately reported that investigators contacted at least four people who work in or advise businesses that interact with Epic and asked about market leverage, patient-data access, rival technology companies, and restrictions affecting former employees (Ross & Trang, 2026). The FTC declined to comment publicly, which means this development should be described as a reported investigation rather than a formal agency announcement (Godoy, 2026; Landi, 2026). The reporting does not identify a public FTC complaint, formal charge, or finding that Epic violated federal law, and STAT described the inquiry as preliminary and potentially capable of ending without charges (Ross & Trang, 2026). Epic denied engaging in anticompetitive conduct and stated that it is a leader in interoperability supporting patient care (Fox, 2026). The subjects reportedly being examined nevertheless overlap with allegations raised in the pending Particle Health, CureIS, Texas, AADJ, Veeva, and Hull matters (Ross & Trang, 2026).

The AADJ Disability-Evidence Case

The case most directly connected to disability evidence is American Association for Disability Justice v. Epic Systems Corporation, filed on March 9, 2026, in the Western District of Texas (Justia, 2026a). AADJ and two individual plaintiffs allege that Epic’s architecture and business practices fragment records across provider-specific systems and interfere with disabled individuals’ ability to assemble medical evidence for Social Security claims (AADJ, 2026). The proposed class action describes patients confronting separate MyChart portals, credentials, authorization procedures, and institutional record repositories when attempting to build complete medical histories (AADJ, 2026). Epic moved to dismiss and argued, among other things, that healthcare providers rather than Epic are the custodians responsible for granting access to patient records (AADJ, 2026; Diaz, 2026). Epic also maintains that it has long supported healthcare interoperability and participates in national information-exchange programs (Diaz, 2026). As of August 2026, the court had not decided the motion and was still directing the parties to satisfy scheduling requirements (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2026). No court has therefore determined that Epic caused the alleged barriers or violated the rights of the proposed class, but the case places the relationship between EHR architecture and disability-evidence development directly before a federal court (Justia, 2026a; SSA).

Particle Health and CureIS

In Particle Health Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, Particle alleges that Epic used its position in the electronic health record market to obstruct a competing health-data platform (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025). In September 2025, the court dismissed Particle’s Sherman Act Section 1, state antitrust, defamation, trade-libel, and business-interference claims but allowed its Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claims and contractual-interference claim to proceed (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025). The continuation of those claims was a pleading-stage decision rather than a finding that Epic committed an antitrust violation (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025). In CureIS Healthcare, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, CureIS alleges Sherman Act violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and related misconduct involving healthcare administrative technology (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 2026). The CureIS case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Western District of Wisconsin in December 2025, where discovery remains underway (Justia, 2025; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 2026). Discovery is scheduled to continue into July 2027, with trial currently contemplated for September 2027 (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 2026). Neither proceeding has produced a final finding that Epic violated antitrust law, but both concern whether competing services can obtain necessary access and operate within an EHR-centered healthcare market (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2025; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 2026).

The Texas Antitrust Case

Texas filed State of Texas v. Epic Systems Corporation in Tarrant County in December 2025 under cause number 236-372872-25 (National Association of Attorneys General [NAAG]; State of Texas, 2025). The state alleges that Epic delays or denies competitors access to electronic health information and imposes financial consequences that discourage customers from using competing applications (NAAG; State of Texas, 2025). Texas also alleges that Epic restricts employment opportunities through noncompete and no-hire arrangements (State of Texas, 2025). A separate portion of the petition alleges deceptive practices involving default settings and recommendations affecting parental access to minors’ medical records (Office of the Attorney General of Texas, 2025; State of Texas, 2025). Epic has disputed the allegations and characterized the state’s claims as based on a misunderstanding of its software and practices (Strategic Health Care, 2025). Texas public-records materials continued to identify the lawsuit as pending in May 2026 (Office of the Attorney General of Texas, 2026). The petition remains a statement of disputed allegations and is not a judicial finding that Epic monopolized the EHR market or unlawfully restricted access to records (NAAG).

The Fischman Product-Liability Case

Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation is a wrongful-death and product-liability case pending in the Northern District of Texas (Justia, 2026b). The plaintiff alleges that deficiencies in Epic’s medication-record architecture prevented clinicians from seeing accurate information needed to treat her father (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026). The complaint identifies alleged problems involving medication timelines, prescriber attribution, reconciliation of active and discontinued medications, and reports distinguishing current from historical information (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026). In June 2026, the court dismissed the negligent-misrepresentation and gross-negligence claims but declined to dismiss the wrongful-death, negligence, and product-liability claims (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026). The court accepted the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations as true for purposes of the dismissal motion and concluded that they plausibly alleged a duty of care (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026). The decision did not determine that a software defect existed or that Epic’s system caused the death, because those factual questions were not before the court at the pleading stage (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026). The case is nevertheless significant because it permits claims based on alleged EHR architecture and information display to proceed beyond the initial dismissal stage (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 2026).

The Health Gorilla Data-Security Litigation

Edward Fox and Suzanne Bryan filed a proposed class action naming Epic, Health Gorilla, Reid Health, and Mammoth Path Solution as defendants (Justia, 2026c). Aaron Berry filed another proposed class action naming Epic and the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System (Justia, 2026d). These actions fall within a larger group of cases concerning allegedly unauthorized access to patient information through health-data exchange networks (U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [JPML], 2026). In August 2026, the JPML centralized nine related actions in the Southern District of Florida as In re Health Gorilla, Inc., et al., Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3193 (JPML, 2026). Berry was subsequently transferred into the Florida multidistrict litigation (Justia, 2026e). Epic has separately sued Health Gorilla and other parties, alleging that organizations improperly obtained and monetized approximately 300,000 patient records after asserting treatment purposes (Epic Systems Corporation, 2026). The competing proceedings demonstrate that medical-record interoperability presents both access and security questions, although the courts have not resolved Epic’s responsibility for the disclosures alleged in the class actions (JPML, 2026).

The Workforce-Restriction Cases

Veeva Systems filed a Wisconsin action challenging Epic’s employee noncompete, nonsolicitation, stock-forfeiture, and related restrictions (Veeva Systems Inc., 2026a). Veeva alleges that the restrictions interfere with its ability to recruit workers for its Wisconsin life-sciences technology operations (Veeva Systems Inc., 2026a). A Dane County judge dismissed the case on procedural standing grounds rather than deciding whether the underlying restrictions are lawful, and Veeva subsequently pursued an appeal (Diaz, 2026b; Veeva Systems Inc., 2026b). Andrea Hull filed a separate action against Epic and its subsidiary Boost in the Northern District of California on July 24, 2026 (Justia, 2026f). Hull alleges that the companies’ employment restrictions interfere with her work for Abbott Diabetes Care and violate California law (Schulz, 2026). Epic stated that it had informed California-based employees that noncompete provisions would not apply to them, while Hull alleges that related restrictions still prevent her from performing parts of her new job (Schulz, 2026). Neither workforce case has produced a ruling that Epic’s underlying restrictions are unlawful, but both address the mobility of professionals who implement and develop healthcare technology (Veeva Systems Inc., 2026b; Justia, 2026f).

Practical Implications for Disability Representatives

A patient portal does not necessarily contain every record included within the HIPAA-designated record set (HHS). The access right may cover medical records, billing records, laboratory reports, claims information, diagnostic images, and other materials used to make decisions about an individual (HHS). Covered entities generally must act on a patient’s access request within 30 calendar days and may take only one additional 30-day extension after providing a timely written explanation (HHS). Representatives should therefore identify the relevant providers, facilities, treatment periods, and categories of information rather than relying exclusively on what appears in a portal (SSA). When a portal appears incomplete, a representative can assist the claimant in requesting the complete designated record set in an electronic format permitted by the HIPAA access rule (HHS). Representatives should preserve requests, authorizations, responses, invoices, screenshots, delivery failures, and other material documenting their efforts to obtain the evidence because SSA requires reasonable diligence in evidence development (SSA, 2026). That documentation may also support a request for hearing-office assistance after good-faith efforts to obtain existing medical evidence have failed (SSA). A practice that interferes with electronic access, exchange, or use may implicate the federal information-blocking framework, depending on the responsible actor’s knowledge and whether an exception applies (ASTP/ONC, 2026).

Evidence Access Is a Disability-Justice Issue

The pending cases proceed under antitrust, tort, product-liability, privacy, contract, disability-rights, and employment theories (Justia, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c, 2026d, 2026f; State of Texas, 2025). The reported FTC investigation overlaps with several of those cases because investigators are reportedly examining data access, interoperability, market leverage, and workforce restrictions (Godoy, 2026; Ross & Trang, 2026). Epic denies wrongdoing, and most of the disputed allegations have not been tested at trial or resolved through final judgments (Fox, 2026). Disability claimants nevertheless remain responsible for identifying and providing medical evidence while these legal and regulatory proceedings continue (SSA). Complete and timely medical evidence supports more accurate and prompt disability decisions, while missing evidence can delay or undermine an otherwise supportable claim (SSA). For claimants and representatives, a medical record that exists but cannot reach the decision-maker in a timely and usable form may have little practical value in the disability determination (SSA; HHS).

Editorial and Status Note

This article reflects publicly available information through September 1, 2026. It covers identified pending U.S. matters in which Epic is a named defendant and the dispute materially concerns health records, EHR design, patient access or security, healthcare competition, or related workforce restrictions. Allegations, investigative reports, and decisions allowing claims to proceed are not findings of liability. The FTC has not publicly confirmed the reported investigation or filed a public enforcement action identified in the cited reporting (Godoy, 2026; Landi, 2026). Private arbitrations, sealed proceedings, routine employment disputes outside the stated scope, and cases initiated by Epic are not included in the litigation count.

References

Advocates, Counselors, and Representatives for the Disabled. (). Empowering professionals to drive meaningful change. https://www.acrd.org/

American Association for Disability Justice. (). A national alliance advancing disability justice. https://www.aadj.org/

American Association for Disability Justice. (2026, June 4). In January, Epic stood beside these hospitals in federal court. In May, Epic blamed them. https://www.aadj.org/resources/in-january-epic-stood-beside-these-hospitals-in-federal-court-inmay-epic-blamed-them

Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. (2026, April 8). Information blocking. https://healthit.gov/information-blocking

Diaz, N. (2026a, May 20). Epic files motion to dismiss disability access lawsuit. Becker’s Hospital Review. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/ehrs/epic-files-motion-to-dismiss-disability-access-lawsuit/

Diaz, N. (2026b, July 30). Seven Epic updates in 30 days. Becker’s Hospital Review. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/ehrs/7-epic-updates-in-30-days-4/

Epic Systems Corporation. (2026, January 13). Healthcare providers and Epic act to safeguard patients’ health information. https://www.epic.com/epic/post/what-you-put-up-with-is-what-you-stand-for/

Fox, A. (2026, August 18). Epic responds to potential FTC antitrust probe. Healthcare IT News. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/epic-responds-potential-ftc-antitrust-probe

Godoy, J. (2026, August 14). US FTC probing health records company Epic Systems. Reuters. https://www.marketscreener.com/news/us-ftc-probing-health-records-company-epic-systems-ce7859dfd88fff2d

Justia. (2025). CureIS Healthcare, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-04108. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3%3A2025cv04108/449464

Justia. (2026a). American Association for Disability Justice et al. v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-00564. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/1%3A2026cv00564/1172894326

Justia. (2026b). Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-00770. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3%3A2026cv00770/416479

Justia. (2026c). Edward Fox et al. v. Epic Systems Corporation et al., No. 2:26-cv-04678. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2%3A2026cv04678/1018161

Justia. (2026d). Berry v. Epic Systems Corporation et al., No. 1:26-cv-04629. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2026cv04629/499370

Justia. (2026e). Berry v. Epic Systems Corporation et al., No. 1:26-cv-25674. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1%3A2026cv25674/721543

Justia. (2026f). Hull v. Epic Systems Corporation et al., No. 3:26-cv-07702. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3%3A2026cv07702/474959

Landi, H. (2026, August 17). Epic faces Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation, Reuters reports. Fierce Healthcare. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/health-tech/epic-faces-federal-trade-commission-antitrust-investigation-reuters-reports

National Association of Attorneys General. (). Texas v. Epic Systems Corp. https://www.naag.org/multistate-case/texas-v-epic-systems-corp/

Office of the Attorney General of Texas. (2025, December 11). Attorney General Ken Paxton sues major medical record database for gatekeeping data and restricting parental access to children’s medical records. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-major-medical-record-database-gatekeeping-data-and-restricting

Office of the Attorney General of Texas. (2026, May 15). Open records letter ruling OR2026-20313. https://www2.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/PIA/51paxton/orl/2026/pdf/or2026020313.pdf

Ross, C., & Trang, B. (2026, August 14). Epic’s alleged anticompetitive practices under scrutiny from federal, state investigators. STAT. https://www.statnews.com/2026/08/14/epic-systems-ftc-review-nda-use-possible-anticompetitive-practices/

Schulz, J. (2026, August 6). Former Epic Systems employee sues company over noncompete agreement. Wisconsin Public Radio. https://www.wpr.org/news/former-epic-systems-employee-sues-company-over-noncompete-agreement

Social Security Administration. (). Part II—Evidentiary requirements. https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/evidentiary.htm

Social Security Administration. (). Best practices for claimants’ representatives. https://www.ssa.gov/appeals/best_practices.html

Social Security Administration. (). Role of the health and medical professional. https://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/role.htm

Social Security Administration. (2026, July 13). POMS DI 31001.010: Disability Determination Services responsibilities when an appointed representative is involved. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.NSF/lnx/0431001010

State of Texas. (2025, December 10). Plaintiff’s original petition, State of Texas v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 236-372872-25. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Petition_4.pdf

Strategic Health Care. (2025, December 11). Texas files antitrust suit against Epic Systems over health data. https://strategichealthcare.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Texas-Files-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Epic-Systems-Over-Health-Data.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (). Individuals’ right under HIPAA to access their health information, 45 C.F.R. § 164.524. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/guidance/access/index.html

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. (2026, June 8). Memorandum opinion and order, Fischman v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-00770. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3%3A2026cv00770/416479/23/

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. (2025, September 5). Memorandum and order, Particle Health Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-07174. https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv07174/628725/42

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. (2026, August 14). Order, American Association for Disability Justice v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 1:26-cv-00564. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20260824e03

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (2026, June 30). Opinion and order, CureIS Healthcare, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 3:25-cv-00991. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3%3A2025cv00991/55650/136/

U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (2026, August 7). Transfer order, In re Health Gorilla, Inc., et al., Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3193. https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3193-Transfer_Order-7-26.pdf

Veeva Systems Inc. (2026a, January 27). Complaint, Veeva Systems Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation, No. 2026CV000275. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26781619/summons-and-complaint-veeva-v-epic.pdf

Veeva Systems Inc. (2026b). 2026 annual report. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1393052/000114036126018799/ny20062821x4_ars.pdf