Human Rights Defense Center v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC and Correctional Care Solutions Group Holdings, LLC
2021 VT 63
Vt.2021Background:
- Wellpath (doing business as Correct Care Solutions) contracted with Vermont DOC from 2010–2015 to provide all medical care to people in state custody; DOC paid ≈$91M and Wellpath’s only Vermont business was this contract.
- The contract made Wellpath responsible for comprehensive inmate healthcare and subjected its policies and procedures to DOC oversight, audits, reporting requirements, and penalties for noncompliance.
- Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) requested records from Wellpath under Vermont’s Public Records Act (PRA) relating to claims, lawsuits, or settlements arising from care; Wellpath refused, asserting it was a private entity not subject to the PRA.
- Trial court applied the functional-equivalency test and granted summary judgment to Wellpath, finding provision of healthcare is not a governmental function.
- Vermont Supreme Court reversed: it concluded Wellpath acted as an "instrumentality" of the DOC while performing the contract, making it a "public agency" under the PRA, and remanded for further proceedings on whether the requested documents are public records or exempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wellpath is a "public agency" under the PRA | Wellpath became the functional equivalent of a public agency when it provided DOC medical services, so PRA applies | Wellpath is a private contractor not covered by the PRA's plain language | Court: Wellpath was an "instrumentality" of DOC during the contract period and thus a "public agency" under the PRA; reversal and remand |
| Whether the functional-equivalency test applies under the PRA | Functional-equivalency is the correct framework to decide PRA coverage | PRA's text does not support applying functional-equivalency; court should not import that test | Court did not decide whether the test applies; unnecessary because Wellpath is an instrumentality under the statute's plain meaning |
| Whether providing inmate healthcare is a governmental function | HRDC: Inmate healthcare is a governmental, constitutionally mandated duty, supporting instrumentality finding | Wellpath: Healthcare is commonly provided privately and thus not uniquely governmental | Court: Inmate healthcare is a quintessentially governmental and constitutionally imposed duty (Eighth Amendment duties), supporting instrumentality status |
| Whether statutory incongruities require legislative change rather than judicial extension of PRA to contractors | Wellpath: Extending PRA to private contractors creates procedural/administrative inconsistencies that only the Legislature should address | HRDC: PRA must be liberally construed to effect open-government policy; courts should apply plain meaning favoring disclosure | Court: Acknowledged administrative concerns but gave effect to plain statutory language and legislative intent favoring disclosure; left implementation questions to Legislature on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington Research Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 504 F.2d 238 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (articulates the functional-equivalency approach used by some courts)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. 2002) (discusses factors for functional-equivalency and treats governmental function as cornerstone)
- City of Baltimore Dev. Corp. v. Carmel Realty Assocs., 910 A.2d 406 (Md. 2006) (analyzes when an entity is an "instrumentality" of a government for records-access purposes)
- Fair Share Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. N.J. State League of Municipalities, 25 A.3d 1063 (N.J. 2011) (treats an entity as an instrumentality and public agency under records law after multi-factor analysis)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (recognizes Eighth Amendment duty of government to provide medical care to prisoners)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (addresses constitutional duties arising from custody and state-imposed care obligations)
- Buckner v. Toro, 116 F.3d 450 (11th Cir. 1997) (observes that private entities performing inmate medical services carry out functions traditionally within the state’s prerogative)