History
  • No items yet
midpage
163 A.3d 485
Pa. Commw. Ct.
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Requester sought documents Highmark submitted to the Pennsylvania Insurance Department regarding provider reimbursement rate changes for physical therapy, allergy testing, and venipuncture, and the Department’s response.
  • The Department denied the request, treating the submissions as confidential proprietary information under RTKL § 708(b)(11); Highmark objected and participated as a direct-interest third party before OOR.
  • Highmark asserted exemptions under RTKL, and that state insurance statutes (the Accident and Health Filing Reform Act § 309 and the Professional Health Services Plan Corporations Act § 6329) protected the rates because they were filed with the Department and marked confidential.
  • OOR ordered disclosure, reasoning § 309(c) of the Reform Act protects only payment rates and fees “requested by the Department,” and concluded Highmark had not shown the rates were requested or otherwise exempt under RTKL § 708(b)(11).
  • On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed OOR, holding the Reform Act and HPCA must be construed together: § 6329’s file-and-use requirement (post-repeal of the approval requirement) effectively satisfies the “requested by the Department” language in § 309(c), so the rate information is statutorily confidential; the court declined to address RTKL § 708(b)(11).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Highmark) Defendant's Argument (Requester / OOR) Held
Whether insurance statutes exempt the rates from RTKL disclosure § 6329 requires filing with the Department; together with § 309(c) the rates are confidential even though formal approval was repealed § 309(c) protects only rates explicitly requested by the Department; repeal of approval means no filing/request required Court held statutes read in pari materia: § 6329’s file-and-use practice satisfies “requested,” so § 309(c) makes rates confidential; reversal of OOR
Whether OOR violated Highmark’s due process by not holding a hearing Highmark: needed a hearing and opportunity to supplement the record; seeks to add evidence on appeal OOR/Requester: Highmark had notice, submitted affidavits and briefs, did not request a hearing, and had opportunity to present evidence Court held no due process violation; Highmark had notice and opportunity; denied supplementation
Whether the submissions qualify as an agency "record" under RTKL when provided by a third party Highmark: submission was required by statute and thus is an agency record Requester/OOR: repeal of approval renders submission voluntary, so RTKL may not apply Court held that because HPCA required filing (file-and-use), submissions are agency records; OOR erred in not analyzing this point and disclosure was improper
Whether RTKL § 708(b)(11) confidential/proprietary exception applies Highmark: alternatively protected as confidential proprietary / trade secret under § 708(b)(11) Requester/OOR: Highmark’s affidavit failed to show substantial competitive harm; insufficient evidence Court did not decide § 708(b)(11) because statutory exemption resolved the case (remanded not required)

Key Cases Cited

  • Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (RTKL public-record presumption and scope of review)
  • Bagwell v. Dep’t of Educ., 131 A.3d 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (third-party participation and burden to prove exemptions)
  • Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Wright, 147 A.3d 978 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (confidential proprietary financial submissions under RTKL)
  • Dep’t of Corr. v. Maulsby, 121 A.3d 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (due process and third-party protection of proprietary information)
  • Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Admin. Servs. v. Parsons, 61 A.3d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (third-party contractors bearing agency burdens)
  • Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Md. Ins. Grp., 752 A.2d 878 (Pa. 2000) (deference to administrative agency interpretations)
  • Office of the Governor v. Bari, 20 A.3d 634 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (remand for hearing when third party must prove RTKL exception)
  • Pa. State Police v. Grove, 119 A.3d 1102 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (when to supplement record on appeal)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Highmark Inc. v. C.L. Voltz, Esq.
Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Date Published: Jun 2, 2017
Citations: 163 A.3d 485; 2017 WL 2399038; 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 293; Highmark Inc. v. C.L. Voltz, Esq. - 1325 C.D. 2016
Docket Number: Highmark Inc. v. C.L. Voltz, Esq. - 1325 C.D. 2016
Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.
Log In
    Highmark Inc. v. C.L. Voltz, Esq., 163 A.3d 485