Court Opinion

ID: 9544326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:54:43.22351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:45.086703
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Mandamus should be available to appellant in this case. The Department of Insurance had the duty to afford the Pennsylvania Dental Association a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments, pursuant to 40 Pa.C.S. § 6329(b). By denying access to the data requested by the Pennsylvania Dental Association, the Department of Insurance rendered the right of reasonable opportunity to comment under the statute illusory. The right to notice and an opportunity to be heard “must be granted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1994, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, 570 (1972) (citations omitted). Without access to any of the information serving as a basis for Blue Shield’s payment application, the Pennsylvania Dental Association could in no real way comment meaningfully. Comments in the abstract are irrelevant to a defense to a rate increase.
The fact that the Pennsylvania Dental Association did not appeal the denial of its petition to intervene is of no moment. It was not necessary for appellant to intervene in *234order to protect its rights under the statute. Therefore, appellant is not required to appeal the denial of its petition to intervene. The only real avenue of relief for the Pennsylvania Dental Association would be in mandamus.