BOSTON — The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument on Dec. 18, 2025, in Perry v. Wellpath, a dispute over whether a jailed litigant’s indigency should have triggered automatic waivers of court fees and whether the statute that imposes a 20% canteen payment for certain inmate suits applies to a private contractor.

A three-judge panel led by Justice Henry (joined by Justices Sachs and Tan) allotted 15 minutes per side and asked counsel to focus on legal questions. The court’s docket lists this matter as 2024P0107. After hearing argument from the plaintiff and counsel for Wellpath, the court took the matter under advisement and recessed.

Why it matters: The parties debated whether the statutory framework governing costs and fee waivers for indigent litigants and the narrower inmate‑fee rule apply when the defendant is a private health‑care contractor that provided services to people in Department of Correction custody. The outcome could affect how courts treat cost petitions and access to expert assistance in civil claims brought by incarcerated people against private contractors.

Plaintiff’s argument: Mr. Perry, the litigant who filed the 2022 civil suit, told the panel he has income below the poverty threshold used by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and therefore should have been declared indigent and exempted from fees. "Because my income is less than $15,612.50 ... waiver should have been automatic," Perry said, arguing the superior court did not comply with the statute’s notice requirements and that he was denied funds to retain a cardiology expert.

Wellpath’s position: Attorney Azarito, representing Wellpath, summarized the procedural posture and contended the court should treat the case differently because Wellpath is a private contractor rather than a state or county official or employee. "The only defendant in this case has been discharged through bankruptcy," Azarito told the panel, adding that she found no precedent applying the inmate‑fee statute to private corporations that contract with correctional institutions. Azarito also noted the plaintiff previously sought $8,000 to hire a cardiology expert and that the trial court denied that request.

Legal issues the court pressed: The panel questioned whether Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 261, §29 (the statute referenced by the parties as imposing a 20% canteen payment for qualifying inmate actions) applies to suits against non‑state contractors and whether any failure to notify Perry of a seven‑day appeal window under the related procedural provisions (discussed as §27(d) in argument) was harmless error given that several related appeals remain on the docket. The judges cited Hunt (discussed in counsel’s briefing) and invited counsel to explain how the appeals interrelate.

Precedent and procedural posture: Azarito told the court she had not found an on‑point case applying §29 to a private corporation and cited a memorandum decision (Markarian v. Ellis) as an example of how a memorandum of decision can note the seven‑day appeal period. The attorney also emphasized that three separate appeals stemming from the same underlying lawsuit remain pending and that the defendant’s bankruptcy discharge complicates potential relief.

What the court took under advisement: Counsel for both sides addressed whether the denial of the expert‑fee request or the lack of a formal seven‑day notice should be deemed reversible error when appeals remain active and the defendant has filed bankruptcy. The panel did not announce a decision and submitted the case for resolution.

Procedural note: The argument record shows the plaintiff sought $8,000 for a cardiology expert, alleged an 11‑day interruption in prescribed Lipitor, and referenced SJC indigency guidance using a poverty threshold cited in argument as $15,612.50. The court indicated it would rule after consideration and then recessed.