 Office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL GREG ABBOTT | |
|
February 20, 2003 Mr. C. David Richards, III
OR2003-1137 Dear Mr. Richards: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 176770. The Texas Department of Health (the "department") received a request for verification of a particular Licensed Professional Counselor's license ("LPC") or whether a named individual has such a license. The requestor also seeks related comments, and asks whether this individual has ever applied for an LPC examination under a disability exemption. We note that the Public Information Act (the "Act") does not require a governmental body to answer factual questions, perform legal research, or create new information in responding to a request. See Open Records Decision Nos. 605 at 2 (1992), 563 at 8 (1990), 555 at 1-2 (1990), 534 at 2-3 (1989). However, a governmental body has a duty to make a good faith effort to relate a request for information to information the governmental body holds or to which it has access. Economic Opportunities Dev. Corp. v. Bustamante, 562 S.W.2d 266, 267-68 (Tex. Civ. App. - San Antonio 1978, writ dism'd); Open Records Decision No. 561 at 8 (1990). Because you have identified information responsive to the request, we address your claims that the information not already released, which you have submitted, is excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. Initially, we must address a procedural matter. The department has not sought an open records decision from this office within the ten business day time period, nor provided this office with the information required to be submitted within the fifteen business day time period as prescribed by section 552.301 of the Government Code. Pursuant to section 552.302 of the Government Code, a governmental body's failure to comply with section 552.301 results in the legal presumption that the requested information is public and must be released unless the governmental body demonstrates a compelling reason to withhold the information from disclosure. See Gov't Code § 552.302; Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins., 797 S.W.2d 379, 381-82 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ) (governmental body must make compelling demonstration to overcome presumption of openness pursuant to statutory predecessor to Gov't Code § 552.302); Open Records Decision No. 319 (1982). Normally, a compelling reason for non-disclosure exists where some other source of law makes the information confidential or where third party interests are at stake. Open Records Decision No. 150 at 2 (1977). The application of section 552.101 of the Government Code can provide a compelling reason for overcoming the presumption of openness. See Open Records Decision No. 150 (1977). Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." This exception encompasses information that another statute makes confidential. The department raises section 552.101 in conjunction with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., which provides that information about the medical conditions and medical histories of applicants or employees must be (1) collected and maintained on separate forms, (2) kept in separate medical files, and (3) treated as a confidential medical record. Information obtained in the course of a "fitness for duty examination," conducted to determine whether an employee is still able to perform the essential functions of his or her job, is to be treated as a confidential medical record as well. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c); see also Open Records Decision No. 641 (1996). Furthermore, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") has determined that medical information for the purposes of the ADA includes "specific information about an individual's disability and related functional limitations, as well as general statements that an individual has a disability or that an ADA reasonable accommodation has been provided for a particular individual." See Letter from Ellen J. Vargyas, Legal Counsel, EEOC, to Barry Kearney, Associate General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, 3 (Oct. 1, 1997). You do not inform us that the individual whose information is at issue either is or has been an employee of the department or an applicant for employment with the department. Therefore, we conclude that the department has not demonstrated that title I of the ADA is applicable to the submitted information. See Attorney General Opinion JC-0555 (2002) (confidentiality provisions in title I of ADA do not apply to medical information obtained by Texas Board of Architectural Examiners in relation to prospective licensing examinees' requests for special accommodations); see also Open Records Decision No. 641 (1996) (addressing applicability of title I of ADA to employment records of Texas Department of Criminal Justice). However, a portion of the submitted information constitutes a medical record, access to which is governed by the Medical Practice Act (the "MPA"), chapter 159 of the Occupations Code. Section 159.002 of the MPA provides: (a) A communication between a physician and a patient, relative to or in connection with any professional services as a physician to the patient, is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter. (b) A record of the identity, diagnosis, evaluation, or treatment of a patient by a physician that is created or maintained by a physician is confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed except as provided by this chapter. (c) A person who receives information from a confidential communication or record as described by this chapter, other than a person listed in Section 159.004 who is acting on the patient's behalf, may not disclose the information except to the extent that disclosure is consistent with the authorized purposes for which the information was first obtained. Information that is subject to the MPA includes both medical records and information obtained from those medical records. See Occ. Code §§ 159.002, .004; Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). This office has concluded that the protection afforded by section 159.002 extends only to records created by either a physician or someone under the supervision of a physician. See Open Records Decision Nos. 487 (1987), 370 (1983), 343 (1982). Section 159.002(c) also requires that any subsequent release of medical records be consistent with the purposes for which the governmental body obtained the records. Open Records Decision No. 565 at 7 (1990). Medical records may be released only as provided under the MPA. Open Records Decision No. 598 (1991). We have marked the submitted document that constitutes a medical record that is subject to the MPA. This information may be released only in accordance with the MPA. Furthermore, section 56.001 of the Occupations Code provides as follows: The social security number of an applicant for or holder of a license, certificate of registration, or other legal authorization issued by a licensing agency to practice in a specific occupation or profession that is provided to the licensing agency is confidential and not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code. Occ. Code § 56.001. You indicate and the documents reflect that the social security number at issue here belongs to an applicant for or holder of a license issued by the department. Accordingly, we find that the social security number falls under section 56.001 of the Occupations Code, as encompassed by section 552.101, and therefore must be withheld. Section 552.101 also encompasses information protected by the common-law right of privacy. For information to be protected from public disclosure by the common-law right of privacy under section 552.101, the information must meet the criteria set out in Industrial Foundation v. Texas Industrial Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Common-law privacy protects information if it (1) contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. 540 S.W.2d at 685. The types of information considered intimate and embarrassing by the Texas Supreme Court in Industrial Foundation included information relating to sexual assault, pregnancy, mental or physical abuse in the workplace, illegitimate children, psychiatric treatment of mental disorders, attempted suicide, and injuries to sexual organs. Id. at 683. This office has also found that the following types of information are excepted from required public disclosure under common-law privacy: some kinds of medical information, or information indicating disabilities or specific illnesses, see Open Records Decision Nos. 470 (1987) (illness from severe emotional and job-related stress), 455 (1987) (prescription drugs, illnesses, operations, and physical handicaps), and personal financial information pertaining to voluntary financial decisions and financial transactions that do not involve public funds, see Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990). We have marked the information that must be withheld under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy. In summary, we have marked the information that may only be released in accordance with the MPA. You must withhold the social security number in the submitted documents under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with section 56.001 of the Occupations Code. We have marked the private information that must be withheld under section 552.101. The remaining submitted information must be released. This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances. This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days. Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling. Id. § 552.321(a). If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free, at (877) 673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e). If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ). Please remember that under the Act the release of information triggers certain procedures for costs and charges to the requestor. If records are released in compliance with this ruling, be sure that all charges for the information are at or below the legal amounts. Questions or complaints about over-charging must be directed to Hadassah Schloss at the Texas Building and Procurement Commission at (512) 475-2497. If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments about this ruling, they may contact our office. We note that a third party may challenge this ruling by filing suit seeking to withhold information from a requestor. Gov't Code § 552.325. Although there is no statutory deadline for contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days of the date of this ruling. Sincerely, Kristen Bates
c: Mr. James Castleberry
POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |