 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT | |
|
June 3, 2003 Mr. Michael G. Young
OR2003-3752 Dear Mr. Young: You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 182112. The Texas Department of Health (the "department") received a request for information "regarding the deaths of children with special health care needs who were placed on a waiting list last year." The requestor subsequently amended the request to include the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. You state that some responsive information "has been or will be released to the requestor." You claim that portions of the requested information are excepted from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the submitted information, which includes a representative sample of information.(1) We will first address your responsibilities under the Public Information Act. Pursuant to section 552.301(e), a governmental body is required to submit to this office within fifteen business days of receiving an open records request (1) general written comments stating the reasons why the stated exceptions apply that would allow the information to be withheld, (2) a copy of the written request for information, (3) a signed statement or sufficient evidence showing the date the governmental body received the written request, and (4) a copy of the specific information requested or representative samples, labeled to indicate which exceptions apply to which parts of the documents. You inform us that the department received the request for information on March 17, 2003. Although you submitted some of the requested documents to this office within fifteen business days, you did not, however, submit the remaining requested information until April 14, 2003. Pursuant to section 552.302 of the Government Code, a governmental body's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of section 552.301 results in the legal presumption that the information at issue is public and must be released. In order to overcome the presumption that the information at issue is public information, a governmental body must provide compelling reasons why the information should not be disclosed. Id.; Hancock v. State Bd. of Ins., 797 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex. App.--Austin 1990, no writ); see Open Records Decision No. 630 (1994). Normally, a compelling interest is that some other source of law makes the information confidential or that third party interests are at stake. Open Records Decision Nos. 630 at 3 (1994), 150 at 2 (1977). As the presumption of openness can be overcome by a showing that information is confidential by law, we will consider your arguments for this information together with your claims regarding disclosure of the information that was timely submitted. You assert that some of the records at issue are medical records, 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: (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. Medical records must be released upon the signed, written consent of the patient, or the patient's personal representative, provided that the consent specifies (1) the information to be covered by the release, (2) reasons or purposes for the release, and (3) the person to whom the information is to be released. Occ. Code §§ 159.004, .005. 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). 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). The records at issue contain information, including diagnosis codes and descriptions of conditions, that appears to have been directly obtained from medical records and communications. Such information may be disclosed only in accordance with the MPA. See Occ. Code §§ 159.002, .004; Open Records Decision Nos. 598 (1991), 546 (1990) (because hospital treatment is routinely conducted under supervision of physicians, documents relating to diagnosis and treatment during hospital stay would constitute protected MPA records). We agree that the portions of the submitted documents that you have marked are medical records subject to the MPA. You also claim that portions of the submitted documents are confidential pursuant to section 38.5 of Chapter 25 of the Texas Administrative Code. However, while section 38.5 provides that the parent or other listed person shall have the right to "have client files and other information maintained in a confidential manner to the extent authorized by law," this provision does not expressly make information confidential. 25 T.A.C. §38.5(a)(6). A statute must contain language expressly making certain information confidential. See Open Records Decision Nos. 658 at 4 (1998), 478 at 2 (1987), 465 at 4-5 (1987). Confidentiality cannot be implied from the structure of a statute or rule. See Open Records Decision No. 465 at 4-5 (1987). Accordingly, we will address your other arguments against disclosure under section 552.101. Section 552.101 of the Government Code excepts from public disclosure "information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Gov't Code § 552.101. This section encompasses information protected by other statutes. Federal and state statutes prohibit the disclosure of information concerning a state plan for medical assistance, except for a purpose directly connected with the administration of the plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(7); Hum. Res. Code §§ 12.003, 21.012; Open Records Decision Nos. 584 (1991), 166 (1977); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(7); 42 C.F.R. § 431.301; Open Records Decision Nos. 584 (1991), 166 (1977). Section 12.003 of the Human Resources Code provides: (a) Except for purposes directly connected with the administration of the [Department of Human Service's] assistance programs, it is an offense for a person to solicit, disclose, receive, or make use of, or to authorize, knowingly permit, participate in, or acquiesce in the use of the names of, or any information concerning, persons applying for or receiving assistance if the information is directly or indirectly derived from the records, papers, files, or communications of the [Department of Human Services] or acquired by employees of the [Department of Human Services] in the performance of their official duties. Hum. Res. Code § 12.003(a). In Open Records Decision No. 584 (1991), this office concluded that "[t]he inclusion of the words 'or any information' juxtaposed with the prohibition on disclosure of the names of the [Department of Human Service's] clients clearly expresses a legislative intent to encompass the broadest range of individual client information, and not merely the clients' names and addresses." Consequently, it is any specific information pertaining to individual clients, and not merely the clients' identities, that is made confidential under section 12.003. See Hum. Res. Code § 21.012 (department shall provide safeguards restricting use or disclosure of information concerning applicants for or recipients of department's assistance programs to purposes directly connected with administration of programs); see also Open Records Decision No. 166 (1977). In this instance, it appears that release of portions of the requested information would not be for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Department of Human Service's assistance programs. We conclude that the information contained in the submitted documents regarding Medicaid recipients derived from records and communications of the Department of Human Services is confidential under sections 12.003 and 21.012 of the Human Resources Code. Therefore, the department must withhold the information that we have marked from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code in conjunction with sections 12.003 and 21.012 of the Human Resources Code. Section 552.101 of the Government Code also encompasses the doctrines of common-law and constitutional privacy. Common-law privacy protects information if (1) the information contains highly intimate or embarrassing facts the publication of which would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public. Industrial Foundation v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). The type 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. 540 S.W.2d at 683. Constitutional privacy consists of two interrelated types of privacy: (1) the right to make certain kinds of decisions independently and (2) an individual's interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters. Open Records Decision No. 455 at 4 (1987). The first type protects an individual's autonomy within "zones of privacy" which include matters related to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education. Id. The second type of constitutional privacy requires a balancing between the individual's privacy interests and the public's need to know information of public concern. Id. The scope of information protected is narrower than that under the common law doctrine of privacy; the information must concern the "most intimate aspects of human affairs." Id. at 5 (citing Ramie v. City of Hedwig Village, Texas, 765 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1985)). This office has found that the following types of information are excepted from required public disclosure under constitutional or 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); personal financial information not relating to the financial transaction between an individual and a governmental body, see Open Records Decision Nos. 600 (1992), 545 (1990); information concerning the intimate relations between individuals and their family members, see Open Records Decision No. 470 (1987); and identities of victims of sexual abuse, see Open Records Decision Nos. 440 (1986), 393 (1983), 339 (1982). Because "the right of privacy is purely personal," that right "terminates upon the death of the person whose privacy is invaded." Moore v. Charles B. Pierce Film Enters., Inc., 589 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Justice v. Belo Broadcasting Corp., 472 F. Supp. 145, 146-47 (N.D. Tex. 1979) ("action for invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded") (quoting Restatement of Torts 2d); See Attorney General Opinions JM-229 (1984) ("the right of privacy lapses upon death"), H-917 (1976) ("We are . . . of the opinion that the Texas courts would follow the almost uniform rule of other jurisdictions that the right of privacy lapses upon death."); Open Records Decision No. 272 (1981) ("the right of privacy is personal and lapses upon death"). You contend that release of portions of the information at issue would implicate the privacy rights of parents. Texas courts have held that the right of privacy may only be asserted by the person to whom the private facts refer. See Moore, 589 S.W.2d at 491. Based upon our careful review of the submitted documents and your arguments, we find that some of the submitted information is confidential under common-law privacy. However, we conclude that no portion of the remaining submitted information is protected under common-law or constitutional privacy. We have marked the information that must be withheld from disclosure under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy. In summary, medical records may be released only in accordance with the MPA. The information regarding Medicaid recipients is confidential under sections 12.003 and 21.012 of the Human Resources Code and must be withheld from disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code. We have marked the information that must be withheld from disclosure under section 552.101 in conjunction with common-law privacy. The remaining submitted information must be released to the requestor. 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, Cindy Nettles
c: Ms. Polly Ross Hughes
Footnotes 1. We assume that the "representative sample" of records submitted to this office is truly representative of the requested records as a whole. See Open Records Decision Nos. 499 (1988), 497 (1988). This open records letter does not reach, and therefore does not authorize the withholding of, any other requested records to the extent that those records contain substantially different types of information than that submitted to this office. POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512) 463-2100 WEB:WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US |