# Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic, Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 7, 2002 · 806 A.2d 866

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735470

## Case

- **Full name:** Rhoda DIBBLE, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Charles Dibble, Appellee, v. PENN STATE GEISINGER CLINIC, INC. D/B/A Geisinger Medical Group, Geisinger Health Plan, Penn State Geisinger Health Systems, Inc., Dr. Gregory J. Fino, Dr. Matthew Connely, Seth W. Fisher, M.D., Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center, Geisinger Medical Center, Dr. Robert Scalia, D.O., Charles A. Laubach, Jr., M.D. and Dr. James Blankenship, Appellants
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 7, 2002
- **Citations:** 806 A.2d 866
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beck
- **Judges:** Cavanaugh, Stevens, Beck
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735470

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- establishing that business documents labeled “proprietary” and “confidential,” when considered in light of the facts of that case, satisfied the collateral order doctrine, allowing for review of the denial of a confidentiality order sought by the originator of those documents

## Opinion text

Dissenting opinion by
BECK, J.
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. Although the records in question arguably fall into the definition of a trade secret, I believe that based on policy reasons appellants should not be entitled to an order of confidentiality.
¶2 HMOs are complex businesses. In the instant case, if the business involved were a corporation making widgets or one selling storm windows I would agree with the majority’s analysis. But the business of the HMO is different. It delivers health care services, vital and necessary to the well being of all citizens. Therefore I view the majority’s public policy analysis as too narrow. What price does the general public pay to protect the confidentiality of the internal operation of an HMO? Is safeguarding the secrets of appellants internal operation, the revelation of which might possibly give another HMO an economic advantage, more important than our citizens’ need to know about the internal operation?
¶ 3 Information regarding an HMO’s managed care procedures, including the *873 compensation of participating physicians, salary/bonus incentive procedures, and the hiring and retention polices should be made available to the public whether for litigation or other purposes. All of the foregoing is material information that may affect a patient’s health care interests. I believe that a patient has a need to know that an HMO is offering financial incentives that can affect a doctor’s medical judgment by penalizing doctors for authorizing too many referrals and rewarding them financially by withholding specialized care. Health care decisions involve matters of life and death. A patient relies on a doctor’s advice about his or her treatment and should know whether such advice is influenced by self-serving financial considerations created by the HMO. I believe a patient has an interest in making an informed choice about his health care choices, and that such an interest trumps the HMO’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of the documents at issue in this case. Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9735470. Public record. Not legal advice.