Wednesday, January 15, 2020 Julie Tappendorf
Last
month, the Illinois Supreme Court held in Rushton
v. Department of Corrections, 2019 IL 124552, that a settlement agreement between a
private healthcare provider who contracted with the state to provide medical services to prison inmates and the estate of an inmate who died is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act.
A
journalist for the Illinois Times filed a FOIA request with the Illinois
Department of Corrections (DOC) seeking settlement agreements involving the
death of a former inmate at Taylorville Correctional Center, including those
that involved private entities who were charged with providing health care to
the decedent; one being Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Wexford contracts with the
DOC to provide medical care to inmates. The DOC obtained a redacted version of
the agreement from Wexford, and the DOC provided it to the requester.
The
journalist and the Illinois Times filed a complaint against the
DOC seeking an unredacted copy of the settlement agreement. The trial court
ruled in favor of Wexford, holding that the agreement was not a public record because it was not “directly related” to the private company's provision of medical services for the
DOC under Section 7(2) of FOIA. The trial court did not rule on the issue of
whether any of the redactions in the agreement were proper. The requesters appealed and the appellate court reversed in their favor, finding that the
agreement was a public record because it “directly related” to the governmental function that it performed for
the DOC because it involved the settling of a claim arising out of its
rendering of medical care. Wexford then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
On
appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the agreement was subject to
disclosure under FOIA. First, the Court found that Section 2.20 of FOIA expressly
provides for the release of settlement agreements involving private entities.
The Court reasoned that the legislature’s enactment of Section 2.20 was
intended as a clarification for public bodies that settlement agreements are
public records subject to disclosure. Next, the Court analyzed whether Wexford
had contracted with the DOC to perform a governmental function on its behalf
and, if so, whether the requested settlement agreement directly related to that
governmental function. The Court determined that since the State has a
constitutional and statutory duty to provide healthcare to inmates, and that
the DOC contracted with Wexford to perform this governmental function on its
behalf, the Court found that the settlement agreement “directly related” to the
performance of the governmental function of rendering medical care to inmates, such
as the decedent, and is subject to disclosure under Section 7(2) of FOIA. In
other words, Wexford “stood in the shoes of the DOC” when it rendered medical
care to the decedent.
This
case provides guidance to local governments and its private contractors
that perform services related to a governmental function, that settlement
agreements may not be shielded from public inspection because of the
presumption of openness under FOIA. Nonetheless, local governments should be
diligent in reviewing the agreements and redacting them as necessary.
Post Authored by Ashton Tunk & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
