In January, Epic Stood Beside These Hospitals in Federal Court. In May, Epic Blamed Them.

Trinity Health, UMass Memorial Health, Reid Health, and OCHIN Sued Health Gorilla Alongside Epic in January. Now They Face Federal Evidence Preservation Demands in the Disability Class Action Against Epic.

Two Additional Tiers Will Serve Over the Next Two Weeks, Reaching Sutter Health, Northwell Health, Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic.

AUSTIN, Texas, June 3, 2026 - Epic Systems Corporation builds the electronic health record software that holds the medical histories of more than three hundred million people in the United States, and according to KLAS Research it operates in hospitals accounting for a majority of the nation’s staffed beds. For disabled Americans who depend on the timely release of those records to establish eligibility for Social Security disability benefits, the question of who controls that information can determine whether a claim is approved or denied. That question now sits at the center of a federal class action, and Epic’s own conduct in a separate lawsuit may help answer it.

The American Association for Disability Justice (AADJ) served formal preservation of evidence demands on Trinity Health, UMass Memorial Health, Reid Health, and OCHIN. The four health organizations are the first tier of an expanding campaign tied to Epic’s May 15, 2026 motion to dismiss in American Association for Disability Justice v. Epic Systems Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-00564, in which Epic argues that medical providers, and not Epic, are responsible for the fragmented patient access systems that millions of Americans struggle to navigate.

All four stood alongside Epic in federal court only months ago. On January 13, 2026, Epic, together with Trinity Health, UMass Memorial Health, Reid Health, and OCHIN, jointly filed Epic Systems Corporation v. Health Gorilla, Inc. in the Central District of California, alleging that roughly three hundred thousand patient records had been improperly accessed through national interoperability frameworks. That filing positioned Epic and the four organizations as joint participants in interoperability governance.

The contradiction runs deeper than timing. In its motion to dismiss, Epic tells the court that “Epic has long been a leader in healthcare interoperability,” and points to its participation in the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, its nationwide exchange infrastructure, and what it describes as a years-long effort to make medical data available where and when it is needed. To patients, Epic markets Share Everywhere and MyChart as tools that let them “give the people who are taking care of [them] temporary access to [their] medical records,” and it promotes its broader interoperability work as “securely connecting your medical records across healthcare providers.”

When confronted with allegations about fragmented records and the barriers facing disabled individuals who attempt to assemble complete medical histories, Epic shifts position. It argues that “providers—not Epic—are the custodians of their patients’ data,” and that “it is accordingly the provider, not Epic, that grants access to their patients’ health records.” Epic also acknowledges that patients must navigate “each provider’s instance of MyChart using dedicated provider-specific credentials,” and that “patients cannot obtain a unified set of medical records through a single Epic portal.” “In January, these four health systems were Epic’s partners in court,” said Maren Miller Bam, General Counsel for AADJ. “In May, Epic named those same systems as the parties responsible for the failures at issue. Both postures cannot be true. The records each hospital holds about its own interoperability governance with Epic go to the precise question now before the court, which is whether Epic or its customers control how patient records move within the Epic system.”

Epic faces mounting antitrust pressure on multiple fronts, including the federal antitrust suit Particle Health, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation in the Southern District of New York and the December 2025 state antitrust action filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

AADJ’s campaign expands in tiers over the next two weeks. The second tier serves June 5, reaching Sutter Health, Northwell Health, AdventHealth, and Baptist Health on evidence relating to Epic’s market power and customer switching costs. The third tier serves June 12, reaching eight additional Epic ecosystem participants. AADJ is also evaluating whether to amend its complaint, to join hospital customers as defendants, and to add claims concerning Epic’s marketing practices.

“Epic wants the benefits of being viewed as the leader in interoperability,” said Rachel Buck, Ph.D., Executive Director of ACRD and AADJ. “But when patients and disabled individuals challenge the real-world barriers they face, Epic’s answer is to point to hospitals and providers. The organizations on AADJ’s preservation list deserve to know, in time to preserve the evidence, what their vendor has placed on the public record about them. AADJ will hold every party that built or operated this architecture accountable, including the vendor and the providers Epic has now identified in federal court as the responsible parties.”

Media Contact: Alex Ramirez, (771) 218-6735, alexr@aadj.org

Multimedia: Interviews, b-roll, and Stop Information Blocking campaign footage available to journalists on request.