The $10.5 Million Veradigm Data Settlement Paid Out on June 12, 2026 and Its Checks Went Void After September 10 — While a New September 2026 Vendor Breach, Not Covered by It, Drew Lawsuits That Were Consolidated in Chicago on September 30

If you are searching for the veradigm data settlement, there are two different things behind that phrase as of October 15, 2026, and they do not overlap.

The settlement that exists is Goodrum, et al. v. Veradigm, Inc., a $10.5 million fund for patients of Veradigm’s health-care clients whose information was taken in what Kroll’s November 26, 2025 notice calls “a December 2024 Data Incident.” It is finished from a claimant’s point of view. The claim deadline was March 16, 2026. Judge John Robert Blakey signed the Final Approval Order on March 26, 2026. The official site then posted: “All submitted claims have been reviewed, and payments for approved claims were issued on June 12, 2026. Please deposit or cash your check promptly, as any uncashed checks will become void after September 10, 2026.”

The thing that is new is a September 2026 incident at one of Veradigm’s third-party vendors, which the company disclosed in a Form 8-K dated September 8, 2026. Lawsuits followed within a day, and on September 30, 2026 Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman consolidated the Clay case with related cases in the same Chicago courthouse. There is no settlement, no settlement website and no claim form for that incident. If you received a breach letter about it in September or October 2026, the $10.5 million fund does not cover you for it.

The class was “all living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted.” The data belonged to patients of Veradigm’s clients, not to Veradigm’s own customers in the retail sense. The official site lists the clients involved: Virginia Ear, Nose & Throat Associates; Carolina Ear Nose & Throat Allergy Center; Neighborhood Health Center of Western New York; Cabarrus Eye Center; Family Medical Group of Texarkana; La Red Health Center; Urology Associates of Mobile; Peachtree Neurological Clinic; North Buncombe Family Medicine; Thomaston Medical Clinic; Henrietta Johnson Medical Center – Wilmington; Catholic Health Initiatives/CommonSpirit Health (including MercyOne); Nystrom & Associates; Genesis Healthcare (including Unio Specialty Care); Delaware Healthnet; and Corona-Temecula Orthopaedic Associates Medical Group — 16 entries by our count.

How much do you usually get from a data breach settlement? For this one, the menu was fixed in the settlement: Cash Payment A reimbursed documented losses “for up to $5,000 per Settlement Class Member upon presentment of reasonable documentation”; Cash Payment B, the no-receipts option, was “a cash payment in the estimated amount of $50,” and every cash payment was “subject to a pro rata increase or decrease depending on the amount available in the Net Settlement Fund.” On top of either, claimants could choose two years of CyEx medical data monitoring. The final per-person amount of Cash Payment B and the number of approved claims have not been published in anything we could read, so we cannot tell you whether the $50 estimate went up or down.

Before claimants were paid, the court awarded class counsel $3,500,000 in fees — one-third of $10.5 million, by our arithmetic — plus $44,925.51 in costs, and $2,500 service awards to each of the four class representatives. The order records “just one objection to the Settlement and 21 opt-outs, out of millions of potential members.” Money left in the fund 20 days after the 240-day period the order sets for class members to select an electronic payment goes to the International Association of Privacy Professionals Student Scholarship Fund, not back to Veradigm.

You never filed a claim. Nothing can be done in Goodrum. Claims closed March 16, 2026; the opt-out and objection deadline was February 17, 2026. The Final Approval Order says class members who did not submit a claim “shall still be bound by the terms of the Settlement and Releases therein” — for the December 2024 incident only.

You filed but never got paid, or your check expired. Contact the administrator directly: (833) 630-8366, or by mail at Goodrum et al. v. Veradigm, Inc., c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391. Checks from the June 12 batch became void after September 10, 2026. The site’s June update did not describe a reissue process, and the site refused our connection on October 15, 2026, so we could not check whether a later notice was posted. Kroll is the only party that can tell you whether a void check can be reissued before the remaining money goes to the cy pres recipient.

You got a letter in September or October 2026 about a vendor incident. That is the new breach. In its 8-K Veradigm said “affected customers and individuals are being notified, with credit monitoring services being offered where applicable.” Enroll in the monitoring offered in your letter if you want it; it costs nothing and is separate from any lawsuit. There is no claim to file today. If the consolidated case ever settles, a court-approved notice with its own website and deadlines would follow — and the release you were bound by in Goodrum covers only the earlier incident, which the court order defines as the intrusion Veradigm “discovered in June 2025.”

For Goodrum, yes, real notices went out. The Final Approval Order confirms the class was notified “by Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Publication Notice,” with the long-form notice on the settlement website. The official site describes itself as “the only authorized website for this settlement,” run by Kroll Settlement Administration under court supervision, phone (833) 630-8366. A check from Kroll dated around June 12, 2026 for an approved claim was genuine.

What to distrust now: any email or text in October 2026 or later that asks you to “file a claim” for a Veradigm settlement, pay a fee to release a payment, or give your full Social Security number or bank login. The claim period ended March 16, 2026, and the only settlement that exists has already issued its payments. Kroll’s forms never needed a payment from you. For the new September 2026 incident there is no settlement at all, so a message offering money for it is not from any court-approved administrator. A breach notification letter from Veradigm or one of its clients offering free credit monitoring is a different thing: the 8-K says such letters are going out.

Veradigm’s 8-K, dated September 8, 2026, says one of its third-party vendors “experienced a cybersecurity incident that impacted certain data associated with a small number of the Company’s customers.” An unauthorized party obtained the vendor’s credentials to a Veradigm application programming interface and “used these credentials to download copies of certain personal data of patients, including, in some instances, Social Security numbers; no clinical or medical data was involved.” The company says the credentials gave no access to its broader network, that it notified law enforcement, and that it does not expect a material financial impact. It has not published how many patients are affected or named the vendor.

The first suit, Clay v. Veradigm, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10827, was filed on September 8, 2026; Walker v. Veradigm, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10852, on September 9. Todd Clay and Tanya Walker were both class representatives in Goodrum. The Walker complaint alleges that “on or around September 5, 2026, Defendant experienced a cyber incident on a server used to store data of Clients’ patients and policyholders,” claims that names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and medical information were compromised — a point the company’s filing disputes on medical data — and proposes a nationwide class of everyone whose information was taken. These are allegations; nothing has been decided.

On September 30, 2026, Judge Coleman granted the motions to reassign related cases and to consolidate and appoint interim class counsel. Her minute order sets the schedule: a consolidated amended complaint by November 16, 2026, Veradigm’s response by January 11, 2027, and an in-person status hearing on January 27, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. Three more cases are to be reassigned to her: Young (26-cv-11149), Smith (26-cv-11354) and Schader (26-cv-11470). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Albert Berry III for discovery and settlement, and he set a video status hearing for October 15, 2026 at 10:45 a.m.; we have not seen a record of what happened there.

The two incidents follow the same pattern: someone else’s credentials. In the first, according to teiss, an outsider got into a Veradigm client’s network on December 15, 2024 and “obtained stolen credentials”; in the second, the credentials came from a vendor. The first produced a $10.5 million fund in roughly nine months from filing — the Goodrum docket opened on June 25, 2025 and final approval came on March 26, 2026. Whether the second goes the same way is open: the schedule Judge Coleman set runs into 2027, the number of affected patients is unknown, and the company calls the incident immaterial to its finances.

For readers, the practical rule is short. A Veradigm payment you are waiting for can only come from Goodrum, and only if you filed by March 16, 2026. Anything about the September 2026 incident is, as of October 15, 2026, a lawsuit, not a settlement. We will update when the consolidated complaint is filed or a settlement is announced.