Sad story. But THIS story is about ultrasound (echocardiogram) so my point stands.

Bollocks to you too. If it hadn't been noticed at the time, then it's highly unlikely to be on the recorded image. The recorded image only shows where the sonographer pointed the probe and therefore what they noticed. You've very unlikely to see something new 8 years later that has any clinical relevance. Ultrasound is a dynamic imaging modality that is very much operator dependent.

It's not bullshit, it's because he wants an irrelevant scan from old records on an old system that no longer exists. The "charge" isn't a charge, it's a statement of what the hospital would have to pay in order to convert the old data.

You can, it's called "Choose and Book"

If the equipment was 20 years old in 2004, and they got rid of it in 2005 (I don't know if that's the case, just guessing) then it's entirely reasonable to claim it's obsolete, as it is - in fact - obsolete. I got rid of my Palmpilot in 2004 - would it be wrong to say that the records I had on there are obsolete?

Yes... and reviewing 8 year old ultrasound results won't help with those.

The 'customer' being someone who has received free healthcare, and is now demanding clinically irrelevant data that would cost a huge amount of money to provide.

Not for ultrasound, unless you want a really silly opinion. You can really only assess what you're seeing when the probe is in your hand.

That's correct - the result is the report, not the images. Chances are, the images would be of no practical use 8 years later, unless the guy wants to engage in litigation in which case he could probably obtain copies of the raw data but perhaps not format converted.

I suspect the data is stored in a 'raw' imaging format which is unique to that scanner - it may well be on CD - but probably not usable in any modern machine or computer, just as would be the case if you had a CD full of Canon or Nikon raw DSLR images and no plugin.

It's not the scan that matters, it's the written report of the person who did the scan, which is why it's not customary not to keep copies of ultrasound scan videos/stills up to date. Ultrasound is a dynamic examination where what you see at the time matters most - the still images only provide a legal backup in case someone challenges the sonographer's conclusion. Video is being used more extensively now, but often video images are not kept long-term as they're large files that are expensive to store.

It is unreasonable - there's no medical use to seeing the images from an 8 year-old scan, only the written report will be actually helpful for his ongoing medical care. Unless, of course, he want to challenge decisions/conclusions made at that time which would be an issue of litigation, not of medical care.

What he's requesting is unnecessary. He wants copies of the images/videos from his cardiac echo from years ago. It's pretty common not to store that kind of data for very long, only the written report (which he already has). I would think these archive copies have been kept (unfortunately) to avoid litigation in case anyone ever makes a complaint. They're unlikely to be of any relevance to his ongoing healthcare, which is why the hospital trust has asked for this money - it's because they would have to buy the old equipment back again to make the format conversion for information which would likely be of no medical use. That's why they didn't do the format conversion at the time.

That's not the ruling, the ruling is at the bottom.

A Mac doesn't cost 1.5 to 2 times more than a similarly specked PC.

Sorry, is there some other requirement to make a playable CD? Obviously it needs to be the right sample rate and so on, but software will do that automatically. It's entirely possible to create a valid audio file that can be pressed on vinyl and won't play. To my knowledge, it's not possible to create a valid audio file that won't play when burnt to CD, unless it's clipping.