Baron v. Commonwealth Department of Human Services
169 A.3d 1268
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Baron filed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to DHS for nursing-home rates paid by managed care organizations (MCOs). DHS said it did not possess the rates and denied access based on MCO exemptions; the MCOs (including Health Plans, Gateway, Health Partners) participated in the OOR proceedings.
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) issued a Final Determination ordering DHS to provide the requested records to Baron within 30 days (the Disclosure Order). The Disclosure Order did not direct any action by the MCOs.
- The Health Plans and Gateway timely appealed OOR’s Disclosure Order to Commonwealth Court; Baron later filed a cross-petition. The Court consolidated those appeals (the Consolidated Appeals).
- While the Consolidated Appeals were pending, Baron filed an original-jurisdiction mandamus petition asking the Court to enforce OOR’s Disclosure Order against DHS and Health Partners. Health Partners filed preliminary objections (demurrer).
- The Court considered whether mandamus relief could be sought while the underlying Final Determination was on appeal and whether an automatic stay under RTKL §1301(b) applied. The Court sustained Health Partners’ preliminary objections and dismissed Baron’s mandamus petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can be used to enforce OOR’s Disclosure Order against Health Partners (a private MCO) | Baron argued the Disclosure Order bound DHS and Health Partners and could be enforced now. | Health Partners argued mandamus is inappropriate against a private party and the Disclosure Order imposes no duty on it. | Court: No mandamus against Health Partners — the Disclosure Order did not impose any mandatory duty on the private MCO. |
| Whether mandamus can be used to enforce the Disclosure Order against DHS while the same order is under appellate review | Baron argued the Disclosure Order is enforceable and no stay applies because third-party appeals don’t qualify under §1301(a). | Health Partners/DHS argued the Consolidated Appeals prevent mandamus because the Disclosure Order is under review and an automatic stay applies. | Court: No mandamus against DHS while appeals pending — petitioner cannot show a present clear right or enforceable mandatory duty; appeals render the order not finally enforceable. |
| Whether third-party (MCO) appeals trigger the RTKL automatic stay under §1301(b) | Baron contended §1301(a) contemplates appeals only by requester or agency, so third-party appeals do not trigger stay. | Health Partners argued third-party appeals are proper and the automatic stay should apply to protect nonpublic interests. | Court: Third-party petitions by Direct-Interest Participants trigger the automatic stay under §1301(b); stay relieves DHS of duty to disclose while appeals pending. |
| Whether other defenses (DTSA, lis pendens, adequacy of appellate remedy) bar enforcement | Baron sought immediate enforcement; he argued appellate processes could be pursued but pressed for mandamus now. | Health Partners raised DTSA preemption, lis pendens, and that appellate review is an adequate remedy. | Court: Rejected DTSA and lis pendens as dispositive here; primary bar is the lack of mandamus prerequisites because the order is on appeal and stay applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (standard for sustaining preliminary objections in demurrer)
- Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 942 A.2d 270 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (elements required to state a mandamus claim)
- Smires v. O’Shell, 126 A.3d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (mandamus enforces established rights; is an extraordinary remedy)
- Office of Open Records v. Center Twp., 95 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (en banc) (automatic stay under RTKL §1301(b) suspends disclosure pending appeal)
- Bagwell v. Dep’t of Educ., 131 A.3d 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (third-party appeals in RTKL matters recognized and protected)
- SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (third-party contractor participation on appeal acknowledged)
- Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Twp., 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (mandamus appropriate only where requester has not appealed the final determination)