Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas v. Texas State Board of Pharmacy, 391 S.W.3d 253

The Board of Pharmacy investigated a pharmacist after a complaint filed by Ardeshir Ashtiani in 2009.
Ashtiani requested the Board’s entire investigative file under the Public Information Act (PIA) in 2009.
The Attorney General issued a ruling that the file was generally confidential under the Pharmacy Act, but the requester’s own prescription record should be released under the Medical Practice Act.
The Board challenged the AG ruling, challenging the release of the prescription record.
The district court granted the Board’s summary judgment; the Attorney General appealed, and the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed.
The central question is whether the Medical Practice Act creates a right of access that overrides confidentiality under the Pharmacy Act and PIA about the requester’s prescription record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Medical Practice Act creates a general right of access to a patient’s own medical records that overrides confidentiality under the Pharmacy Act.	Abbott argues sections 159.002(c) and 159.004(5) grant access.	Board contends no general right; confidentiality governs.	No general right of access under the Medical Practice Act.
Whether section 552.023 of the PIA provides a right of access to the requester’s own prescription record.	Abbott relies on 552.023 to grant access.	Board argues 552.023 does not compel disclosure here.	552.023 does not require disclosure.
Whether the prescription record is confidential by law under section 565.055 of the Pharmacy Act.	Abbott does not dispute confidentiality; Board bears burden.	Pharmacy Act confidentiality applies to the entire investigative file.	Yes; the prescription record is confidential by law under 565.055.
Whether the Board met its burden to show the file is confidential and not subject to disclosure under the PIA.	Abbott challenges the Board’s interpretation of confidentiality.	Board maintains the file is confidential and exempt from disclosure.	The Board proved the prescription record was confidential under 565.055 and exempt under 552.101.

City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (PIA exceptions and de novo review of summary judgments)
In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001) (statutory interpretation and public information act framework)
Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Att’y Gen., 37 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (standard for PIA exemptions)
State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (interpretation of statutory intent in access issues)
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2007) (statutory construction principles for access remedies)