Carter-Hubbard Pub. v. Wrmc Hosp. Operating, COA05-420.

• Decision Date: 01 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. COA05-420.,COA05-420.
• Citation: 633 S.E.2d 682
• Parties: CARTER-HUBBARD PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. WRMC HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 682

633 S.E.2d 682

CARTER-HUBBARD PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. WRMC HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. COA05-420.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

August 1, 2006.

Appeal by defendant from an order entered 24 January 2005 by Judge James M. Webb in Wilkes County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 November 2005.

Willardson, Lipscomb & Miller, L.L.P., by John S. Willardson, Wilkesboro, for plaintiff-appellee.

McElwee Firm, P.L.L.C., by John M. Logsdon, North Wilkesboro, for defendant-appellant.

The Bussian Law Firm, P.L.L.C., by John A. Bussian, Raleigh, for North Carolina Press Association, amicus curiae.

Linwood L. Jones, Cary, for North Carolina Hospital Association, amicus curiae.

BRYANT, Judge.

Wilkes Regional Medical Center Hospital Operating Corporation ("defendant") appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Carter-Hubbard Publishing Company, Inc. ("plaintiff"). Plaintiff appeals the trial court's denial of motions to amend the complaint and to tax costs and attorney fees against defendant. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

Plaintiff publishes the Wilkes Journal Patriot, a major news source for the citizens of Wilkes County. Defendant is the governing body of Wilkes Regional Medical Center ("WRMC"), a public hospital owned by the Town of North Wilkesboro. In 2004, defendant purchased Dr. Nicholas Cirillo's ("Dr. Cirillo") medical practice. This purchase took place because "Dr. Cirillo was the only gastroenterologist located in Wilkes County, and WRMC [wanted] to assure the continued availability of gastroenterological services to [WRMC's] patients." Subsequently, plaintiff requested a copy of defendant's purchase agreement with Dr. Cirillo (the "contract"). Defendant refused to provide the contract, contending that the contract amounted to "competitive health care information" under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-97.3 and, therefore, was not subject to disclosure. Plaintiff believed, under the North Carolina Public Records Act, defendant was required to disclose the contract.

On 8 September 2004, plaintiff filed suit, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 132-9, seeking an order compelling defendant to disclose the contract. On 25 October 2005, defendant filed an Answer stating the contract was not subject to disclosure because it was considered "competitive health care information" within the meaning of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-97.3. On 20 January 2005, at a hearing held in Wilkes County Superior Court, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the contract did not contain "competitive health care information" and "should be produced in its entirety." Defendant moved to stay the court's order pending appeal. The trial court denied defendant's motion and ordered defendant to produce the contract. Defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas with this Court on 25 January 2005. On 16 February 2005, we granted defendant's motion and stayed the trial court's order pending appeal.

On review of a motion for summary judgment, this Court considers whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005). In this case, there were no genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment was appropriate. However, we consider de novo whether the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hlasnick v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 136 N.C.App. 320, 323, 524 S.E.2d 386, 388, aff'd in part on other grounds, 353 N.C. 240, 539 S.E.2d 274 (2000).

In its order the trial court stated: "The contract in question does not contain `competitive health care information' within the meaning of [N.C. Gen.Stat. §] 131E-97.3 . . . and should be produced[.]" In this appeal we decide whether the trial court erred in finding the contract at issue is a public record and granting summary judgment for plaintiff. Therefore, in this case of first impression, we determine whether a public hospital's contract to purchase a medical practice should be considered "competitive health care information" and therefore exempt from the Public Records Act. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-97.3 (2005).

Under the Public Records Act, our Legislature granted liberal access to public records. See McCormick v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc., 164 N.C.App. 459, 596 S.E.2d 431 (2004); see also N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 132-1(b), 132-6 (2005) (defining public records as "the property of the people" and allowing examination of public records).

"Public records" include:

all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions[.]

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 132-1(a) (2005). "Absent clear statutory exemption or exception, documents falling within the definition of `public records' in the Public Records Law must be made available for public inspection." Virmani v. Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 462, 515 S.E.2d 675, 685 (1999) (citation omitted). Exceptions and exemptions to the Public Records Act must be construed narrowly. See News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Poole, 330 N.C. 465, 412 S.E.2d 7 (1992) (In the absence of clear statutory exemption or exception, documents falling within the definition of "public records" in the Public Records Act must be made available for public inspection.); see also Three Guys Real Estate v. Harnett County, 345 N.C. 468, 472, 480 S.E.2d 681, 683 (1997) ("If the language of the statute is clear and is not ambiguous, we must conclude that the legislature intended the statute to be implemented according to the plain meaning of its terms."); State v. Hooper, 358 N.C. 122, 125, 591 S.E.2d 514, 516 (2004) ("Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must construe the statute using its plain meaning.") (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Defendant argues the contract at issue amounts to "competitive health care information" and is therefore exempt from the public records statute. We note that our legislature has exempted from the definition of "public record" what it refers to as "competitive health care information."

Information relating to competitive health care activities by or on behalf of hospitals and public hospital authorities shall be confidential and not a public record under Chapter 132 of the General Statutes; provided that any contract entered into by or on behalf of a public hospital or public hospital authority, as defined in G.S. 159-39, shall be a public record unless otherwise exempted by law, or the contract contains competitive health care information[.]

N.C.G.S. § 131E-97.3 (2005).

Defendant contends the legislature has linked the term "competitive health care information" with the term "confidential commercial information"¹ in determining what is protected under N.C.G.S. § 131E-97.3 (2005). Defendant therefore urges this court to take a very broad view of the term. However, "competitive health care information" is not specifically defined in our statute. "Health care" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "[t]he prevention, treatment, and management of illness and the preservation of well-being through the services offered by the medical and allied health professions." The American Heritage College Dictionary 626 (3rd ed. 1997). Pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-99 "competitive health care information" includes "financial terms" of a contract and any "health care information directly related to financial terms in a contract." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 131E-99 (2005). North Carolina General Statutes, Section 131E-99 is the only statute that gives some indication of what the legislature intended by its use of the term "competitive health care information."

"The cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature is controlling. In ascertaining the legislative intent courts should consider the language of the statute, the spirit of the statute, and what it seeks to accomplish." State ex rel. Util. Comm'n v. Public Staff, 309 N.C. 195, 210, 306 S.E.2d 435, 444 (1983) (citations omitted). "`Other indicia considered by this Court in determining legislative intent are the legislative history of an act and the circumstances surrounding its adoption[.]'" County of Lenoir v. Moore, 114 N.C.App. 110, 115, 441 S.E.2d 589, 592 (1994) (quoting In re Banks, 295 N.C. 236, 239-40, 244 S.E.2d 386, 389 (1978)), aff'd, 340 N.C. 104, 455 S.E.2d 158 (1995). When multiple statutes address a single matter or subject, they must be construed together, in pari materia, to determine the legislature's intent. Whittington v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 100 N.C.App. 603, 606, 398 S.E.2d 40, 42 (1990). Statutes in pari materia must be harmonized, "to give effect, if possible, to all provisions without destroying the meaning of the statutes involved." Id. "Where there is one statute dealing with a subject in general and comprehensive terms, and another dealing with a part of the same subject in a more minute and definite way, the two should be read together and harmonized, if possible, with a view to giving effect to a consistent legislative policy; but, to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between them, the special statute, or the one dealing with the common subject matter in a minute way, will prevail over the general statute[.]" Nat. Food Stores v. Bd. of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 628-29, 151 S.E.2d 582, 586 (1966) (quoting...