Energy. Environment. Economy.

Commonwealth Court throws out several challenges to Act 13, including ‘doctor gag rule’ [UPDATED]

The Commonwealth Court has upheld several sections of the state's oil and gas law,  including a provision dealing with doctors' access to the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

Lindsay Lazarski/WHYY

Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court has upheld several sections of the state's oil and gas law, including a provision dealing with doctors' access to the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

This post has been updated to include additional comments on the ruling.

Pennsylvania doctors have nothing to worry about when it comes to the so-called “gag order” on chemical exposures from oil and gas drilling. That’s the message from the Commonwealth Court today in a much-anticipated ruling on provisions of the state’s two-year-old oil and gas law. The court issued the ruling after the Supreme Court passed on the controversy, sending it back to the lower court.

The “gag rule” stems from a section of Act 13, which requires nondisclosure agreements from healthcare providers who seek information on chemical exposures, which may be deemed “confidential” by industry. The law, which was drafted without the knowledge or consultation of healthcare providers, forces doctors to sign a nondisclosure agreement, thereby agreeing not to share any ingredients in the industry’s secret sauce used to frack and drill for natural gas.

Writing for the Commonwealth Court, President Judge Dan Pellegrini says the law is not unconstitutional, and it neither prevents healthcare providers from obtaining the necessary information or sharing it with other health practitioners.

“It just reinforces the muddiness”

Governor Corbett’s administration says it is pleased with the ruling.

In a statement, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of General Counsel said “Pennsylvania remains one of the most progressive and transparent states in the nation with respect to hydraulic fracture disclosure.”

But some doctors say the ruling does nothing to clear up the confusion left by lawmakers.

“It just reinforces the muddiness we already have,” says Dr. Amy Pare, a plastic surgeon from Washington County.

Pare regularly treats patients who wonder if their symptoms are tied to nearby gas drilling. She says the ruling doesn’t make her feel any safer signing a non-disclosure form.

“I don’t think most physicians are well-versed in the legal system to know if they are within the boundaries of the law,” says Pare. “So you just avoid it, you don’t bring it up.”

Part of the problem, says Pare, is that the language of the nondisclosure form remains a mystery.

“I can’t think of any other word for it than intimidating,” says Pare. “It’s intimidating for the doctor, and it’s intimidating for the patient.”

Not all the members of the five-judge panel agreed. Judge Patricia McCollough wrote a dissenting opinion, where she expressed concern about the larger impacts to public health.

“While the range and precise language of the confidentiality agreement is not known, it is a fair inference that a health professional will be unable to share the information in the peer-review setting, publish the clinical findings and proposed treatment plans in medical journals, or coordinate the outcome and treatment plans with other hospitals who later experience the same or a similar case.”

Court upholds other challenged sections

The Commonwealth Court also upheld eminent domain for natural gas storage facilities. And state environmental regulators do not have to notify private well owners of drilling related spills.

Environmental groups argued that the law should not treat private well owners differently than public water suppliers. Act 13 requires the Department of Environmental Protection to notify public water facilities of spills.

President Judge Pellegrini says, like health providers, private water well owners have nothing to worry about:

Even though it is not required to do so, in the event of a spill, the DEP will in all likelihood, canvas the areas to identify individuals served by private wells and notify them of the spill and aid them in getting alternative water supplies.

PUC cannot review zoning ordinances

The Commonwealth Court also ruled the state’s Public Utility Commission does not have authority to review local zoning ordinances.

In December, the state Supreme Court found that some portions of Act 13 dealing with restrictions on local zoning for natural gas development violated Pennsylvania’s constitution. Given the higher court ruling, the Commonwealth Court says any challenges to local ordinances cannot bypass local zoning boards, effectively removing the role Act 13 set up for the PUC.

Act 13 originally gave the PUC and the Commonwealth Court power to withhold a municipality’s share of the Marcellus Shale impact fee if a local ordinance was found to be in violation of the law.

Plaintiff’s attorney Jordan Yeager praised today’s decision.

“It means that this industry has to… respect local governments just like every other industry does,” he says. “And that’s a good thing for democracy, that’s a good thing for public health and the environment.”

A spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition – the state’s top drilling trade group – says the industry has always been willing to work with local communities.

“The decision of the Commonwealth Court to strike down the procedural provisions of Chapter 33 does not change this commitment.”

Law expert anticipates appeal

John Dernbach, a professor at Widener University’s Environmental Law Center, expects both sides to appeal the ruling.

“The state and its allies I think are going to be unhappy with the continuing viability and strength of local government authority,” he says. “The citizen petitioners are going to be unhappy that some of their claims weren’t given the kind of credence that they felt like they deserved.”

A spokesman says the governor’s office is “carefully evaluating the impact of the Court’s ruling” on the PUC’s role in overseeing local zoning rules for natural gas development.

You can read StateImpact Pennsylvania’s annotated version of the ruling here:


  • Ronald Webb

    Sometimes I wonder if greed for the almighty dollar blinds us like a bright sunny day. Was just watching a very old episode of the Waltons, where they wanted to buy Waltons Mountain for $25,000 but they wanted everything the house the land their heritage. It’s almost like somebody coming to put Fracking wells on property now threatening the health of the land animals and the people I believe it’s not healthy in anyway and the rewards of money are not worth the property the land and the animals thank you for letting me have my opinion

  • Victoria Switzer

    a well owner does not have to be told if he/she has had a spill on their property????? So I am to infer it is no longer their property-they are just tenants and their landlord is more powerful than God…understood

  • Ruth

    The Act 13 “gag rule” effects ALL health care providers, not just physicians. Nurses, Nurse practitioners, pharmacists – all of us. Additionally what is consistently missing in this conversation is the fact quality health care delivery relies on scientific evidence from research to determine the best course of action for a specific problem. If we are unable to share with colleagues what treatment worked and what treatment did not work for a specific exposure – how is it possible to deliver quality care to improve someone’s health or to establish methods of exposure prevention?

  • Robert Steffes

    Property owners and local governments have a lot to thank Brian Coppola for. You will find his name listed as the lead plaintiff in the suit that brought down Act 13. As a member of my city’s Zoning Hearing Board, I am acutely aware of how that industry favoring law would have stripped us of the ability to protect property owners and residents from forced location of heavy industrial activities into our very backyards. Mr. Coppola paid a steep political price for his good work: the gas industry ran well financed candidates against him in his tiny Washington county township and he lost his reelection bid.

  • Vera Scroggins

    I still don’t understand what the gag order is like for health practitioners…what does it actually say; would like to see a copy of it;

  • Mr. Kianersi

    Dear Sir/Ma Good Day,

    My name is Mr. Ezzatollah Kianersi, I would like to let you know that we provide Financial Instrument (BG/SBLC) Convert Into Funds Through Your Bank or Secure Your Loan With BG/SBLC As Collateral through your Banks as well okay. This is the details you will need below:

    We have direct providers of Financial Instrument (BG/SBLC) Convert Into Funds Through Your Bank. Our bank instrument can be engaged in PPP Trading, Discounting, Signature Project(s) such as Aviation, Agriculture, Petroleum, Telecommunication, Construction of Dams, Bridges, Real Estate and all kind of projects. We do not have any broker chain in our offer neither do we get involved in chauffer driven offers. We deliver with time and precision as set forth in our agreement. Our terms and Conditions are reasonable, below is our instrument description.

    DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS: 1. Instrument: Bank Guarantee (BG/SBLC) 2. Total Face Value: Min of 1M Euro/USD (One Million Euro/USD) to Max of 5B Euro/USD (Five Billion Euro/USD). 3. Issuing Bank: HSBC, London or Deutsche Bank Frankfurt or 08:17 3/6 4. Age: One Year, One Day 5. Leasing Price: 5.0% of Face Value plus (0.5+X)% commission fees to brokers. 6. Delivery: Bank to Bank SWIFT. 7.Payment: MT-103. 8. Hard Copy: Bonded Courier within 7 banking days.

    Intermediaries/Consultants/Brokers are welcome to bring their clients and are 100% protected.

    If Interested kindly contact me via Email:~ Mr. Ezzatollah Kianersi…….. Email: (

    My Skype ID is ………………: bgsblc.kianersi

    Looking Towards Your Response Soonest,

    Best Regards.


About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »