Com. of PA, L&I v. K. Simpson
980 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Kathryn Simpson submitted an RTKL request to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry seeking workers’ compensation claimant names and addresses, dates of injury, claim numbers, and carriers for claims filed on or after Jan. 1, 2014.
- The Department denied the request under RTKL §§708(b)(5) (medical/disability information) and 708(b)(28) (records relating to applicants/recipients of social services, including workers’ compensation).
- Simpson appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); OOR held §708(b)(5) did not apply and ordered disclosure of all requested information except claimant names, reasoning Van Osdol allowed disclosure of non-identifying data.
- The Department appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) exempts records “relating to an individual’s application” for social services and thus the entire requested record is exempt and not a public record.
- The Commonwealth Court majority reversed the OOR, holding the whole requested record is exempt under §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) and therefore not subject to redaction requirements for public records; dissent would have affirmed OOR, urging narrow construction and requiring evidentiary showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requested workers’ compensation data are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) (records relating to an individual’s application for social services) | Requester: items do not fall within §708(b)(28)(ii)(B); only claimant names might identify recipients; other fields (address, date, claim no., carrier) are not exempt and should be disclosed/redacted | Dept.: all requested items originate from an individual’s application (a "claim") for workers’ comp; §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) therefore exempts the entire record from disclosure | Held: The Court reversed OOR — the requested information is exempt in its entirety under §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) and not a public record; redaction requirement does not apply |
| Whether §708(b)(5) (medical/disability info) bars disclosure | Requester: §708(b)(5) protects identifiable health information only; requested items do not reveal injury type or medical details | Dept.: §708(b)(5) covers enrollment in programs like workers’ compensation and thus supports nondisclosure | Held: Court did not reach merits after concluding §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) applies; noted Dept. need not prove §708(b)(5) once §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) exemption applies |
| Whether an agency must redact exempt information when a record contains both public and exempt material (§706) | Requester: agency should redact exempt portions and release remainder | Dept.: if entire record is exempt under §708, it is not a public record and §706 redaction duties do not apply | Held: Where a record is exempt under §708, it is not a public record and §706 redaction requirement is inapplicable (relying on Department of Health precedent) |
| Proper scope of Van Osdol precedent (Section 8 property info) | Requester/OOR: Van Osdol supports disclosure of non-identifying fields (addresses, carriers, claim numbers) | Dept.: Van Osdol involved different subsections; §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) is broader and does not require identity be disclosed to be exempt | Held: Majority distinguished Van Osdol and held it does not control; §708(b)(28)(ii)(B) applies to records "relating to" applications regardless of whether information alone identifies recipient |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Osdol v. Housing Auth. of City of Pittsburgh, 40 A.3d 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (narrowly construed §708(b)(28) exemptions; addresses/owner names of Section 8 properties not per se exempt)
- Dep’t 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 the redaction requirement of §706 does not apply)
- Saunders v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 48 A.3d 540 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (records exempt under §708 are not public records subject to §706 redaction)
- Levy v. Senate of Pa., 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles for RTKL; remedial purpose and narrow construction of exemptions)