The First Information Blocking Expert

Key Takeaways

• Pretrial Daubert hearing scheduled July 2 before Judge Tigar
• Intus’s economist claims $17 million losses from RTZ’s blocking
• RTZ’s economist estimates $1.16 million plus $0.5 million fees
• Information‑blocking expert testimony lacks established legal precedent
• Intus argues prior summary judgments bar RTZ’s expert opinions

Pulse Analysis

The IntusCare v. RTZ dispute illustrates how complex health‑IT cases progress through the traditional litigation stages—pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, pretrial, and trial. At the pretrial juncture, Daubert motions serve as a gatekeeping mechanism, allowing judges to exclude expert testimony that fails to meet rigorous standards of methodology and relevance. Both sides have filed motions targeting each other's experts, setting the stage for a decisive July hearing that could reshape the evidentiary landscape of the case.

What makes this showdown unique is the novelty of information‑blocking expertise. While economic and cybersecurity experts are commonplace in software‑related lawsuits, the Cures Act’s information‑blocking provisions lack a body of case law to guide expert analysis. Intus’s economist, Dr. Kristopher Hult, attributes roughly $17 million in lost revenue to RTZ’s alleged blocking, whereas RTZ’s economist, Peter Schwechheimer, counters with a $1.16 million profit loss plus $430‑$550 k in access fees. The real contention centers on Traci Creegan’s health‑IT testimony, which challenges prior summary‑judgment findings that RTZ is an actor under the Cures Act and that it engaged in information blocking. Intus argues that these rulings preclude RTZ from re‑examining the issues through expert testimony.

The outcome will have ripple effects across the health‑technology sector. A ruling that affirms stringent Daubert scrutiny for information‑blocking experts could raise the evidentiary bar for future Cures Act enforcement, prompting vendors to invest more heavily in compliance documentation and risk‑management strategies. Conversely, a more permissive stance may embolden litigants to pursue aggressive economic damages claims based on data‑access disputes, reshaping how hospitals and software firms assess the financial stakes of interoperability challenges. Either way, the case is poised to become a reference point for courts navigating the intersection of health IT, regulatory policy, and expert testimony.