The further presumed finding is that neither plaintiff nor Holbrook, Heaven had a reason to know or to investigate further into the identity. Under the circumstances of this case, the duty to disclose more appropriately falls onto defendant. Defendant initially requested Ms. Rose's medical records and, upon request, produced her signed authorization for their release. Plaintiff could have easily assumed, albeit erroneously, that Ms. Rose was the principal. Defendant lastly argues the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's fee for the copies was reasonable.
Defendant argues our standard of review is unlimited.
Plaintiff argues that whether a fee is reasonable is a question of fact. If defendant is correct that statutory law limits the amount plaintiff may charge for copies to a reasonable fee, then interpretation of that statute would be a question of law. 20 Kan. App. 2d 277, Syl. Defendant, however, is incorrect that any statute governs this case.