Aetna, et al. v. Eiseman et al. s. - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 129 EAL 2014 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, : : Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Commonwealth Court : v. : : : JAMES EISEMAN, JR. AND THE PUBLIC : INTEREST LAW CENTER OF : PHILADELPHIA, : : Petitioners : AETNA BETTER HEALTH, INC., HEALTH PARTNERS OF PHILADELPHIA, INC., AND KEYSTONE MERCY HEALTH PLAN, Respondents v. JAMES EISEMAN, JR., AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA, Petitioners UNITEDHEALTHCARE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. D/B/A UNITEDHEALTHCARE COMMUNITY PLAN AND HEALTHAMERICA PENNSYLVANIA INC. D/B/A COVENTRYCARES, Respondents : No. 130 EAL 2014 : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Commonwealth Court : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 131 EAL 2014 : : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Commonwealth Court : : : : : v. : : : JAMES EISEMAN, JR. AND THE PUBLIC : INTEREST LAW CENTER OF : PHILADELPHIA, : : Petitioners : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are: (1) Where Section 708(c) of the Right-[t]o-Know Law specifically provides that a financial record is not exempt from disclosure on the basis that it contains a trade secret or confidential proprietary information, is this explicit provision nullified by the earlier-enacted Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act? (2) When public funds are funneled through middlemen before reaching their intended beneficiaries, are the records documenting this flow of public funds financial records required to be disclosed under the current version of the Right-[t]o-Know Law, as they were under the prior version of the law? (3) Are historical rates paid by Medicaid managed-care organizations (MCOs) confidential proprietary information and trade secrets, when the rates from one year do not reveal the rates for future years, and when most of the MCOs have already disclosed such rates to a subcontractor who negotiates rates with their competitors? The Prothonotary shall establish parallel briefing tracks for this case and Dental Benefit Providers, Inc. v. Eiseman, No. 132-34 EAL 2014, and the two cases, though not consolidated, shall be listed for argument at the same Court session. [129-31 EAL 2014] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
