Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A series of cross-appeals involved tax credits and refunds for overpayments of the City of Philadelphia’s Business Privilege Tax (BPT). The City appealed the Commonwealth Court’s decision affirming the award of credits to Keystone Health Plan East, Inc., and QCC Insurance Company (collectively, Taxpayers), who appealed the same decision affirming the denial of their refund requests. The Philadelphia Department of Revenue agreed Taxpayers overpaid their taxes, but denied the refund requests as untimely. Taxpayers appealed to the Philadelphia Tax Review Board, arguing the net income corrections effectively reset the “due date” since they had 75 days from the completion of an IRS audit to file the amended returns. The Review Board rejected Taxpayers’ argument, determining “due date” referred to the date the returns were initially due (April 15, 2004 and 2005, respectively). Notwithstanding this denial of refunds, the Review Board, sua sponte, awarded Taxpayers credits for their overpayments. The trial court affirmed the Review Board’s decision. Both parties appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court affirmed. The majority further held the trial court did not err in affirming the award of credits. Finding no reversible error in the Commonwealth Court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Phila. v. Tax Review Bd." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review centered on review of a Commonwealth Court order Court interpreting a provision of a consent decree, negotiated by the Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania ("OAG") and approved by the Commonwealth Court, between Appellant UPMC, a nonprofit health care corporation, and Appellee Highmark, a nonprofit medical insurance corporation, which established the obligations of both parties with respect to certain health care plans serving vulnerable populations. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Commonwealth Court erroneously interpreted this "vulnerable populations" provision as creating a contractual obligation for UPMC to treat all participants in Highmark’s "Medicare Advantage Plans" (for which Highmark and UPMC currently have provider contracts which UPMC has indicated it will terminate) as "in-network" for purposes of determining the rates it is permitted to charge these individuals for physician, hospital, and other medical services during the duration of the consent decree. After careful review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s finding that the "vulnerable populations" clause of the consent decree required UPMC to "be in a contract" with Highmark for the duration of the consent decree, and, thus, that UPMC physicians, hospitals, and other services shall be treated as "in-network" for participants in Highmark Medicare Advantage plans which were subject to provider contracts between Highmark and UPMC set to be terminated by UPMC on December 31, 2015. The Court also affirmed the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order requiring judicial approval for any further changes in business relationships between these parties which were governed by the consent decree, but quashed as not yet ripe for review the portion of the order which directed the OAG to file a request for supplemental relief to effectuate compliance with the consent decree. View "Pennsylvania v. UPMC" on Justia Law

At issue in these cross-appeals by Verizon Telephone Company of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth was the taxability of Verizon’s gross receipts under the Pennsylvania Gross Receipts Act, for: (1) the installation of private phone lines; (2) the provision of directory assistance services; and (3) certain non-recurring charges levied on its customers for the installation of telephone lines; moves of, and changes to telephone lines and services; and from repairs of telephone lines. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that revenue derived from all such activities constitutes gross receipts taxable under 72 P.S. 8101(a)(2), and, thus, affirmed the portion of the order of the Commonwealth Court which determined revenue from the first two above-enumerated activities were taxable. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order finding revenue from the third activity was not. View "Verizon, PA, Inc. v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

On January 13, 2015, as his term was ending, out-going Governor Tom Corbett appointed appellee Erik Arneson as the Executive Director of the Office of Open Records (OOR) for a term of six years, with an optional reappointment for an additional six years. On January 20, 2015, the first day of Governor Wolf’s term, he terminated Appellee’s employment. Appellee filed a complaint for mandamus and declaratory relief in the Commonwealth Court, arguing that Governor Wolf’s termination of his employment violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Right to Know Law (RTKL). The Commonwealth Court accepted this argument and reinstated Appellee. The Governor appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after review, adopted and supplemented the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, and affirmed. View "Arneson v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The issue the Supreme Court addressed in these consolidated appeals centered on the extent of the public’s statutory right of access to discrete information about the implementation of the Medical Assistance Program. In 2011, James Eiseman, Jr. and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (“Requesters”) tendered requests to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) seeking records revealing, among other things, the rates that DPW paid to managed care organizations (MCOs) for dental services in the Southeast Zone (the “Capitation Rates”), and the amounts paid by MCOs to provide dental services (the “MCO Rates”). These were submitted per the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). DPW denied the requests. Pertinent to the Supreme Court’s review of this case, with regard to the MCO Rates, the Department indicated that it had been informed by each of the MCOs that the rates were “trade secrets and/or confidential proprietary information” protected against disclosure. The Department did not deny that it possessed pertinent records; rather, it related that the MCOs had instructed that “DPW is not to disclose” the rates. The Office of Open Records (OOR), however, issued a final determination granting the relevant records requests. Initially, an appeals officer observed that records in the possession of a Commonwealth agency were presumed to be public, unless they qualified for an exemption under the RTKL or other law or are protected by a privilege, judicial order, or decree. In a divided opinion, the Commonwealth Court sustained the portion of the OOR’s determination concerning Capitation Rates, as the members of an en banc panel unanimously agreed that contracts between DPW and the MCOs were financial records under the Law. In the absence of a legislative evaluation, the Supreme Court could not conclude that records which must be submitted to a government agency for approval, were not records “dealing with” the agency’s monetary disbursements and services acquisitions. "[I]f the General Assembly wished for dissemination to be withheld, it would have been a straightforward matter to provide for redaction of trade-secrets information in Section 708(c) of the Law, as was done in relation to eight of the other openness exceptions which are otherwise withheld from financial records." The Court focused upon the conclusion that records which were required to be submitted to and approved by DPW, and which reflected the central means of implementing a core departmental function, were records “dealing with” DPW’s disbursement of public monies and its responsibility to afford access to healthcare services in furtherance of the public interest. The order of the Commonwealth Court holding to the contrary was reversed relative to the MCO Rates, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Dept. of Public Welfare v. Eiseman" on Justia Law