Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Commonwealth v. Eiseman
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 19, 2014Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge McCULLOUGH.
In this Righb-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 case, James Eiseman, Jr. and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (Re-questers) seek rates set by contracts entered into between the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) and various private entities as they pertain to the administration of the dental care aspect of the Medicaid2 program and the distribution of public funds to implement the program and pay dental care providers for their services.
DPW administers Medicaid, and through the HealthChoices Program, provides dental care to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Levy v. Senate of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Office of the Governor v. ScolforoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Hunt v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Lukes v. Department of Public WelfareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- In Re SilbersteinCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.