Granted: Medical protocols for prisoners from county contractor
April 13, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Appealed to
court | Lackawanna
Co. | Third-party
contractors | Proprietary
information | Trade
secrets | Privilege
| Public
safety | Loss of
funds
Granted: A request to Lackawanna
County for the rules and regulations pertaining
to medical treatment of inmates at the county
prison, including those of the contractor
providing medical services.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: A request to Lackawanna County for the rules and regulations pertaining to medical treatment of inmates at the county prison, including those of the contractor providing medical services.
The county had supplied certain records but withheld internal medical protocols of its third-party contractor as "trade secrets." In its denial it also asserted attorney-client, work-product and physician-patient privileges, and exceptions for potential loss of funds, public safety, disclosure of patient information, and confidential information contemplated in awarding the county contract.
In its response to the Office of Open Records, the county supplied a letter from the contractor providing medical care at the provision, stating that its internal medical protocols were protected as "confidential proprietary information" and "trade secrets." The county did not submit any factual or legal basis to support its claim to the other exceptions.
The OOR determined that neither the contractor nor the county sufficiently supported claims that the medical protocols of the contractor were either "trade secrets" or "confidential proprietary information." It noted that the county was diligent in trying to furnish materials to satisfy its burden of proof, and that the contractor was not cooperative in giving the county the required facts.
Schillinger vs. Lackawanna County -- AP 2000-0168
APPEALED TO LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: May 13, 2009
Granted: A request to Lackawanna County for the rules and regulations pertaining to medical treatment of inmates at the county prison, including those of the contractor providing medical services.
The county had supplied certain records but withheld internal medical protocols of its third-party contractor as "trade secrets." In its denial it also asserted attorney-client, work-product and physician-patient privileges, and exceptions for potential loss of funds, public safety, disclosure of patient information, and confidential information contemplated in awarding the county contract.
In its response to the Office of Open Records, the county supplied a letter from the contractor providing medical care at the provision, stating that its internal medical protocols were protected as "confidential proprietary information" and "trade secrets." The county did not submit any factual or legal basis to support its claim to the other exceptions.
The OOR determined that neither the contractor nor the county sufficiently supported claims that the medical protocols of the contractor were either "trade secrets" or "confidential proprietary information." It noted that the county was diligent in trying to furnish materials to satisfy its burden of proof, and that the contractor was not cooperative in giving the county the required facts.
Schillinger vs. Lackawanna County -- AP 2000-0168
APPEALED TO LACKAWANNA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: May 13, 2009