Commonwealth v. Eiseman
85 A.3d 1117
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- DPW administers Pennsylvania's Medicaid HealthChoices program in the Southeastern region and contracts with five MCOs to provide care; dental services are largely provided through Subcontractors (DentaQuest); DPW does not negotiate or set caps for dental rates; Request sought Capitation Rates (DPW→MCOs) and MCO Rates (MCO→Subcontractors) for July 2008–June 2011; OOR ordered disclosure, rejecting Trade Secrets Act and RTKL trade secrets exemptions; hearing held with MCO witnesses and Dr. Miller supporting confidentiality; Lukes v. DPW guided initial reasoning but the Court distinguished current RTKL from the Prior Law; the Court held Capitation Rates are financial records, while MCO Rates are not, and applied the RTKL and Trade Secrets Act differently accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Capitation Rates financial records subject to disclosure? | Requester/Lukes controls; Capitation Rates are financial records and not protected by RTKL trade secrets. | DPW and others argue Lukes doctrine applies and Capitation Rates may be protected as trade secrets. | Capitation Rates are financial records and must be disclosed. |
| Are MCO Rates protected as confidential proprietary information or trade secrets? | Requester argues no independent RTKL/exemption bars disclosure. | MCO Rates are confidential proprietary information and/or trade secrets. | MCO Rates are protected as confidential proprietary information and trade secrets under RTKL §708(b)(ll). |
| Does the Trade Secrets Act provide an independent defense for Capitation Rates or are RTKL redactions controlled by §708(c)? | Trade Secrets Act provides an independent defense. | RTKL §708(c) limits redaction and Trade Secrets Act does not override financial-record protections. | Trade Secrets Act does provide independent protection, but Capitation Rates fall under financial-record framework; decision affirms disclosure for Capitation Rates. |
| Should Lukes control be extended to current RTKL or distinguish as the majority did? | Lukes applies to current RTKL. | Current RTKL differs from Prior Law; Lukes should not control. | Lukes is distinguished; the Court does not apply Lukes to Capitation Rates but uses Trade Secrets Act analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (provider-provider agreements and public funds disbursement support disclosure of rates)
- Parsons v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, 910 A.2d 177 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (trade secrets protected as exemption from disclosure)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (RTKL presumption of openness and scope of review for RTKL questions)
- Office of the Governor v. Bari, 20 A.3d 634 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (separate treatment of various RTKL protections (deliberative process context))
- Giurintano v. Department of General Services, 20 A.3d 613 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (confidential proprietary information exception applied in subcontractor context)
- Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (principles on precedents and statutory interpretation)