Sandi Montour v. MassAbility (SPR 20250084)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records January 24, 2025 SPR25/0084 Saraha Defensor, Esq. Counsel MassAbility 600 Washington Street Boston, MA 02111 Dear Attorney Defensor: I have received the petition of Sandi Montour appealing the response of MassAbility to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On December 22, 2024, Ms. Montour requested the following: 1. Any and all records related to Gracious Home Health Care ... Used as part of the MassAbility credentialing and/or re-credentialing process and/or any other processes 2. Any and all records related to any concerns or complaints submitted about Gracious Home Health Care, including any reviews, investigations and resulting dispositions MassAbility responded on January 8, 2025. Unsatisfied with MassAbility’s response, Ms. Montour petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/0084, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

Saraha Defensor, Esq. SPR25/0084 Page 2 January 24, 2025 Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. MassAbility’s January 8th Response In its January 8, 2025 response, MassAbility indicates that it does not possess records responsive to Item 1 of the request, and that it will require additional time to produce records responsive to Item 2 of the request. Item 1 In its January 8, 2025 response, MassAbility explains that it “does not possess any records responsive to ... request number 1 as MassAbility does not ‘credential[] and/or re- credential[]’ the entity Gracious Home Health Care LLC.” In her appeal petition, Ms. Montour indicates she believes MassAbility possesses records responsive to Item 1 of the request. Subsequent to the opening of this appeal, in an email to this office and MassAbility on January 10, 2025, Ms. Montour indicates that she has received records responsive to Item 1 of the request, and states that “we can consider this part of this appeal closed.” In light of Ms. Montour’s January 10th email, I find that Ms. Montour’s appeal is resolved with regard to Item 1 of the request. Item 2 In its January 8th response, MassAbility explains the following: MassAbility continues to process [Ms. Montour’s] request to number 2 to gather potentially responsive records. MassAbility is unable to provide a complete response by today. Pursuant to G.L. c. 6 § 10(b)(vi), MassAbility estimates a response will issue by January 15, 2025 (15 business days after PRR receipt). With regard to Item 2 of the request, in her January 10th email to this office and MassAbility, Ms. Montour states that “we are okay with allowing ... the MassAbility team more time to review and provide a response/any related records.” In a further email to MassAbility and this office on January 13, 2025, Ms. Montour inquires “[w]hat timeframe do you have in mind for item number 2?”

Saraha Defensor, Esq. SPR25/0084 Page 3 January 24, 2025 In light of Ms. Montour’s January 10th and January 13th emails, where she is willing to agree to an extension of time to provide records, I find it is unnecessary to opine on her appeal regarding Item 2 of the request. This office encourages Ms. Montour and MassAbility to communicate directly in order to resolve the outstanding issues. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi) (requestor may voluntarily agree to response date beyond timeframes set by statute). I understand an attorney of the Public Records Division attempted to reach MassAbility by telephone in order to clarify this matter, but was not able to resolve the matter prior to this determination. Conclusion Consequently, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If outstanding issues remain after Ms. Montour and MassAbility communicate further as described above, Ms. Montour may file an appeal within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Sandi Montour