Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the inmate fee-payment provisions of G. L. c. 261, § 29, did not apply because the defendant, Wellpath, LLC, was not a state or county agency, official, or employee. The court reversed the single justice's order requiring the plaintiff to pay a reduced appellate entry fee and directed that the entry-fee waiver be allowed. The matter was remanded for further proceedings concerning the plaintiff's challenge to the denial of funds for an expert witness.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Appeals Court single justice's order setting a reduced appellate entry fee was appealable.
- Whether G. L. c. 261, § 29, applies to an inmate's request for waiver of appellate fees in an action against a private health-care provider.
- Whether any procedural defects barred review of Perry's challenge to the Superior Court's denial of expert-witness fees and costs.
- Whether the seven-day appeal period under G. L. c. 261, § 27D, commenced when the Superior Court failed to advise Perry of his appellate rights.
Holdings
- A single justice's denial or reduction of an indigent party's request to waive the fee for docketing an appeal in the Appeals Court is appealable to a panel of the Appeals Court.
- G. L. c. 261, § 29, does not apply to an inmate's request for waiver of court fees when the inmate is suing a private entity that is not a state or county agency, official, or employee.
- An indigent party's petition under G. L. c. 231, § 118, first par., may be treated as an appeal under G. L. c. 261, § 27D, for which no filing fee is required; failure to comply with § 27D's seven-day period does not bar review when the trial court failed to advise the applicant of the right to appeal and the applicable deadline.
Key quotations
“Here, although the plaintiff is an inmate at MCI-Norfolk, because Wellpath is not "a state or county agency, official or employee," it was error for the single justice to apply § 29.” (6)
“The Supreme Judicial Court has removed this trap for the unwary so that an indigent party's rights are not lost on a technicality.” (7)
Factual background
Perry, an inmate at MCI-Norfolk, sued Wellpath, a private health-care provider for Department of Correction inmates, alleging delayed diagnosis and treatment of a serious medical condition and failure to dispense prescribed medication after coronary artery bypass surgery. He sought $8,000 to hire a cardiologist as an expert witness and submitted an affidavit of indigency. The Superior Court denied the request, after which Perry sought interlocutory review and a waiver of the appellate entry fee.
Procedural history
Perry filed a Superior Court action against Wellpath and moved for $8,000 in expert-witness fees and costs under G. L. c. 261, § 27B. After the motion was denied, he sought interlocutory review and moved to waive the appellate entry fee. The Appeals Court single justice ordered him to pay a reduced fee under G. L. c. 261, § 29; the single justice effectively denied reconsideration. Perry appealed, and the Appeals Court reversed the fee order and remanded for proceedings on the merits of his challenge to the Superior Court order.
Remand instructions
The order of the single justice requiring payment of a partial entry fee is reversed. A new order shall enter allowing Perry's motion to waive the entry fee. The matter is remanded to the single justice for further proceedings on the merits of Perry's challenge to the Superior Court's denial of his motion for extra fees and costs to hire an expert witness under G. L. c. 261, § 27B.