151 A.3d 678
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Kathryn Simpson submitted an RTKL request to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry seeking names and addresses of workers’ compensation claimants (claims filed on/after Jan 1, 2014), dates of injury, claim numbers, and carriers.
- Department denied the request, citing RTKL §§708(b)(5) (medical/disability information) and 708(b)(28) (records relating to applications for or receipt of social services, including workers’ compensation).
- OOR granted the appeal in part: it held §708(b)(5) did not apply and ordered disclosure of all responsive records except claimant names, concluding §708(b)(28) only exempted names but not addresses, dates of injury, claim numbers, or carrier information.
- Department appealed to the Commonwealth Court arguing the entire requested record is exempt under §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) because it ‘‘relates to an individual’s application’’ for workers’ compensation (a social service).
- Commonwealth Court majority reversed OOR, holding the request seeks information ‘‘relating to an individual’s application’’ for social services and thus is exempt in its entirety under §708(b)(28)(ii)(B); redaction was improper because an exempt record is not a ‘‘public record.’n
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simpson) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested workers’ compensation data is exempt under RTKL §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) as relating to an individual’s application for social services | The request seeks non-medical, administrative data (addresses, dates, claim numbers, carrier) that do not reveal medical/disability details and may be disclosed or redacted | The information is generated by and relates to claims (applications) for workers’ compensation, a social service, so the entire record is exempt from disclosure | Held for Department: the requested items ‘‘relate to an individual’s application’’ and are exempt in their entirety under §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) |
| Whether §708(b)(5) (medical/disability) precludes disclosure of requested items | Items do not reveal medical diagnosis/treatment and thus §708(b)(5) does not apply | Argued §708(b)(5) covers enrollment in workers’ compensation programs and related data | Court did not decide §708(b)(5) because §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) made records non-public; §708(b)(5) unnecessary to resolve |
| Whether an agency must redact exempt portions of a record under §706 when some parts are disclosable | Requester: OOR properly ordered redaction (produce non-exempt fields) per §706 | Department: if a record is exempt under §708, it is not a public record and §706 redaction does not apply; entire record need not be produced | Held for Department: §706 redaction applies only to public records; a record exempt under §708(b) is not a public record and need not be redacted or produced |
| Proper scope/interpretation of §708(b)(28) exemptions vs. Van Osdol precedent | Sought narrower reading; relied on Van Osdol to argue addresses, claim numbers, carriers don’t identify applicants and are disclosable | Department urged that §708(b)(28)(ii)(B)’s plain language covers any record relating to an application, broader than exemptions considered in Van Osdol | Held for Department: distinguished Van Osdol (which addressed different subsections) and applied §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) broadly to records relating to claims, reversing OOR |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Osdol v. Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, 40 A.3d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (narrowly construed §708(b)(28)(i) and (ii)(A) to permit disclosure of owner names and addresses where those items alone did not identify social-service recipients)
- Department of Health v. Office of Open Records, 4 A.3d 803 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (if a record is exempt under §708 it is not a public record and need not be produced or redacted under §706)
- Saunders v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 48 A.3d 540 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (records exempt under §708 are not public records and §706 redaction obligations do not apply)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL is remedial; statutes must be interpreted to effect legislative intent)