In re M.R.

214 A.3d 660

IN RE: PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY the HEARING EXAMINER IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE the BOARD OF MEDICINE

Appeal of: M.R.

No. 35 EAP 2016

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: December 5, 2018

Decided: August 20, 2019

OPINION

JUSTICE WECHT

In this direct appeal, we are asked to consider the enforceability of a series of subpoenas obtained by a physician for testimony and treatment records relating to other providers' care of the physician's former patient, as well as related questions regarding the scope and applicability of numerous statutes that protect a patient's medical information. The Commonwealth Court granted the physician's petition to enforce the subpoenas. Because we conclude that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issue, we must vacate that court's order.

Our disposition requires only a brief summary of the factual background. Sarah G. DeMichele, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. From August 2011 through February 2013, Dr. DeMichele provided psychiatric care to M.R. Throughout her time under Dr. DeMichele's care, M.R. struggled with suicidal ideations and engaged in a pattern of self-harming behavior, which she discussed regularly with Dr. DeMichele. In December 2012, M.R.'s self-inflicted injuries necessitated emergency medical treatment. M.R. ultimately was transferred to the Trauma Disorders Program at Sheppard Pratt Health System ("Sheppard Pratt") in Baltimore, Maryland. At Sheppard Pratt, M.R. was treated by psychiatrist Richard Loewenstein, M.D., and psychologist Catherine Fine, Ph.D. During the course of his treatment of M.R., Dr. Loewenstein obtained M.R.'s medical records from Dr. DeMichele. On March 31, 2014, Dr. Loewenstein submitted a complaint to the Professional Compliance Office of Pennsylvania's State Board of Medicine ("Board"), in which he alleged that Dr. DeMichele's care of M.R. was professionally deficient. Dr. Loewenstein's complaint prompted an investigation and, ultimately, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Dr. DeMichele.

On September 24, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of State's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs ("Bureau") filed an order directing Dr. DeMichele to show cause as to why the Board should not suspend, revoke, or restrict her medical license, or impose a civil penalty or the costs of investigation. Dr. DeMichele filed a counseled response to the order, denying the allegations and requesting a hearing before a hearing examiner.¹ A hearing on the disciplinary proceeding was scheduled for June 15, 2016.

In advance of the hearing, Dr. DeMichele requested that the hearing examiner issue subpoenas for the testimony of M.R. and the medical records of Dr. Loewenstein, Dr. Fine, Sheppard Pratt, and M.R.'s former treating psychologist, April Westfall, Ph.D. Relying upon the authority provided under 63 P.S. § 2203(c),² the hearing examiner issued the requested subpoenas. However, when served with the subpoenas, all of M.R.'s treatment providers refused to release their records absent a court order or M.R.'s authorization. M.R. subsequently refused to authorize the release of her records.

On June 9, 2016, Dr. DeMichele filed with the hearing examiner a motion to dismiss the disciplinary action or, in the alternative, to grant a continuance of the proceeding in order to allow her to apply to the Commonwealth Court for an order compelling compliance with the subpoenas. On June 10, 2016, the hearing examiner denied Dr. DeMichele's motion to dismiss, but granted a continuance so that Dr. DeMichele could commence an action to enforce the subpoenas.

On July 1, 2016, Dr. DeMichele filed a Petition to Enforce Subpoenas ("Petition") in the Commonwealth Court, asking that court to order M.R., Sheppard Pratt, and Drs. Loewenstein, Fine, and Westfall to comply with the subpoenas. Dr. DeMichele did not specify whether she commenced the action in the Commonwealth Court's original or appellate jurisdiction. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 761 (original jurisdiction); 763 (direct appeals from government agencies). Dr. DeMichele's Petition did not name any party, but she served the Petition on the Board and the Bureau (collectively, the "Commonwealth"). Dr. DeMichele did not serve the Petition upon M.R. or the treatment providers against whom she sought enforcement of the subpoenas. However, upon receiving a courtesy copy of the Petition, M.R. retained counsel and sought to intervene in the enforcement action.

The Commonwealth Court held a hearing on September 1, 2016, following which the court granted Dr. DeMichele's Petition and ordered that each subpoena be enforced. After the Commonwealth Court denied her motion for reconsideration, M.R. filed a notice of appeal to this Court. On appeal, M.R. argued for the first time that the Commonwealth Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain Dr. DeMichele's Petition.³ On August 22, 2017, this Court directed the Commonwealth Court to prepare an opinion addressing M.R.'s allegations of error, including the jurisdictional challenge.

On April 26, 2018, the Commonwealth Court issued an opinion addressing M.R.'s claims. In re Petition for Enf't of Subpoenas Issued by the Hearing Exam'r in a Proceeding before the Bd. of Med. , 373 M.D. 2016 (Pa. Cmwlth. Apr. 26, 2018) (unpublished) (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Court Opinion"). Concerning subject matter jurisdiction, the Commonwealth Court reasoned that it exercised original jurisdiction over Dr. DeMichele's Petition. The Commonwealth Court first appeared to invoke Subsection 761(a)(4) of its original jurisdiction statute, which establishes the Commonwealth Court's jurisdiction over any civil action or proceeding, "[o]riginal jurisdiction of which is vested in the Commonwealth Court by any statute hereafter enacted." 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(4). That subsequently enacted statute, the Commonwealth Court reasoned, was the Medical Practice Act of 1985 ("MPA"),⁴ one provision of which authorizes the Board to "apply to Commonwealth Court to enforce its subpoenas." 63 P.S. § 422.9(c). The Commonwealth Court recognized that the "instant proceeding differs in nature" from one that typically would fall under 63 P.S. § 422.9(c) "because the Board did not initiate the action." Commonwealth Court Opinion at 11. The Commonwealth Court did not resolve the apparent inconsistency with the language of the MPA, instead offering, seemingly in the alternative, different bases for its exercise of original jurisdiction.

The Commonwealth Court reasoned that subpoena enforcement actions are "proceedings ‘[b]y the Commonwealth government,’ as described in Section 761(a)(2) of the Judicial Code." Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(2) ). The court quoted this Court's decision in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Lansdowne Swim Club , 515 Pa. 1, 526 A.2d 758 (1987), wherein we stated that, "[i]n a subpoena enforcement proceeding, the action is brought by an agency of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth Court's jurisdiction is original and concurrent with the courts of common pleas." Commonwealth Court Opinion at 11 (quoting Lansdowne , 526 A.2d at 760 ). Thus, the Commonwealth Court suggested that the action was brought "[b]y the Commonwealth government," establishing jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(2).

The court next invoked Subsection 761(a)(1) of its original jurisdiction statute, which provides that the Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction over civil actions brought "[a]gainst the Commonwealth government." 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1). With regard to Subsection 761(a)(1), the court reasoned:

Dr. DeMichele filed the Petition with this court to which the Commonwealth filed an answer and alleged new matter, asserting that the subpoenaed records were protected by privilege and statutory confidentiality provisions. Two Commonwealth attorneys entered their appearances to oppose the Petition. Thereafter, the Commonwealth appeared at argument before this court in opposition to Dr. DeMichele's Petition. M.R. appeared at the hearing based upon her application and fully participated. For these reasons, the court had subject matter jurisdiction over Dr. DeMichele's Petition against the Commonwealth.

Commonwealth Court Opinion at 12 (capitalization modified; footnotes omitted).

Case law has long established that, in order for the Commonwealth Court to exercise original jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1), the Commonwealth must be an indispensable party to the action. See, e.g. , Annenberg v. Commonwealth , 686 A.2d 1380, 1384 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) ("[T]he Commonwealth must be an indispensable party to the action for Section 761(a)(1) to apply."); see also CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv. Inc. , 536 Pa. 462, 640 A.2d 372, 377-78 (1994). In a footnote, the Commonwealth Court briefly addressed M.R.'s contention that the Commonwealth was not an indispensable party to Dr. DeMichele's action. Because the Board and Bureau were the only entities that Dr. DeMichele served with her Petition, the Commonwealth Court reasoned that "the Commonwealth was not one of several defendants, it was the only defendant." Commonwealth Court Opinion at 12-13 n.15. The court did not further address the standard by which a party is determined to be indispensable to an action.

Following receipt of the Commonwealth Court's opinion, we granted the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs addressing, inter alia , the Commonwealth Court's finding of subject matter jurisdiction.⁵ M.R. contends that Dr. DeMichele's Petition cannot be construed as commencing an action "[a]gainst the Commonwealth government," 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1), because Dr. DeMichele "sought no judicial relief of any kind against the Board or the Bureau." Supplemental Brief for M.R. at 4. Rather, M.R. argues, "the Petition merely recited various arguments as to why [Dr.] DeMichele, a private party, should be granted an order compelling...