2016 Ohio 556
Ohio2016Background
- Lipson O’Shea requested records under R.C. 149.43 for all homes in Cuyahoga County (2008–2011) where a minor had blood lead levels >10 mg/dL.
- Cuyahoga County Board of Health (BOH) identified roughly 5,000 pages of responsive records and refused production, asserting statutory confidentiality under R.C. 3701.17.
- BOH sought a declaratory judgment and submitted 12 sample files to the trial court for in camera review; the trial court granted BOH summary judgment, holding R.C. 3701.17 barred release because the records identified or could identify individuals.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding BOH must review records individually, redact protected health information (PHI), and release nonprotected portions instead of a blanket denial.
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review on whether information in public-health custody that identifies or can identify an individual is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act absent consent.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals: the requested records are linked to protected health information (describing a person’s physical condition), the mere disclosure of an address for a house where a child had elevated lead reveals PHI, and the case is remanded for the trial court to review and redact PHI, releasing any nonprotected information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records identifying or that could identify individuals with elevated lead are exempt from public disclosure under R.C. 3701.17 and R.C. 149.43 | Lipson O’Shea: requested records concerning homes with children having elevated lead levels; argued the BOH must disclose nonexempt information and redact PHI | BOH: release is prohibited because records contain PHI that identifies or could identify individuals; blanket exemption justified | Held for BOH in substance: information tied to an individual’s physical condition (e.g., an address showing a child had elevated lead) is PHI; but BOH must review records and redact PHI, releasing nonprotected portions; remanded for that review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 89 Ohio St.3d 396 (2000) (Public Records Act favors disclosure; policy of open government)
- State ex rel. The Miami Student v. Miami Univ., 79 Ohio St.3d 168 (1997) (interpretation of Public Records Act in favor of disclosure)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Daniels, 108 Ohio St.3d 518 (2006) (lead-contamination notices without individualized medical details did not constitute protected health information)