Oregon Health & Science University v. Oregonian Publishing Co.
278 Or. App. 189
| Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. | 2016Background
- OHSU received eight tort claim notices (2006–2011) and compiled a spreadsheet listing claim type and whether to disclose claimant name, attorney, tort date, notice date, status, and claim number.
- The Oregonian requested claimant names, attorney names, tort dates, notice dates, and open/closed status for tort claims against OHSU since 2006; OHSU withheld portions citing various exemptions (ORS 192.496, ORS 192.502, ORS 353.260, HIPAA Privacy Rule, FERPA).
- The Multnomah County district attorney ordered disclosure; OHSU filed for declaratory relief in circuit court. The trial court granted The Oregonian summary judgment and ordered disclosure, and awarded attorney fees.
- OHSU appealed, arguing patient-related information is exempt under ORS 192.496(1) (medical records) and ORS 192.502(2), is HIPAA-protected, and that some claims (faculty, student) are exempt under ORS 353.260 or FERPA/ORS 192.502(8).
- The appellate court held that whether patient or student tort notices are exempt depends on whether the specific notices qualify as medical records under ORS 192.496(1) or as FERPA "education records," and remanded for in-camera review; it upheld disclosure of non-exempt employment-claim information and reversed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OHSU) | Defendant's Argument (The Oregonian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether patient tort-claim information (name, tort date, attorney) is exempt under ORS 192.496(1) (medical records) | The notices contain "information about the physical or mental health or psychiatric care or treatment" and thus the records (or portions) are exempt unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure | The Oregonian sought only claimant/attorney names and dates (non-medical data); ORS 192.505 requires segregation of nonexempt material from exempt material | Remanded: appellate court concluded the trial court should have evaluated whether the notices are medical records under ORS 192.496(1); if so, the records (or whole parts) may be exempt and must be judged in camera on privacy/public-interest grounds |
| Whether HIPAA (Privacy Rule) bars disclosure or makes records exempt under ORS 192.502(8) | HIPAA protects the requested information; federal law prohibits disclosure so state disclosure is foreclosed | The Oregonian argued ORS 192.420 is a state law "require[ment]" that may make disclosure "required by law" under 45 C.F.R. §164.512(a)(1) | Held: If state law requires disclosure (absent an OPRL exemption), disclosure is permitted under the Privacy Rule; whether HIPAA blocks disclosure depends on whether an OPRL exemption (e.g., ORS 192.496) applies — remanded for that determination |
| Whether employment-related claimant names are exempt under ORS 192.502(2) (personal privacy) or ORS 353.260 personnel rules (faculty) | Names of employee claimants are personal and disclosure would unreasonably invade privacy; faculty notices are confidential personnel records under ORS 353.260 | The Oregonian argued claimant identity is a statutorily required element of a tort notice and is of public concern; ORS 353.260 confidentiality does not apply because notices are kept by risk management, not in personnel files | Held: Nonfaculty claimant name is not "information of a personal nature" under ORS 192.502(2) and disclosure was proper; faculty claimant notice is a public record here because there is no evidence it was in a personnel file — disclosure proper |
| Whether student-related tort-claim notice is exempt under FERPA / ORS 192.502(8) | Student notice may be an "education record" protected by FERPA and thus exempt from disclosure | The Oregonian contends the requested fields are not necessarily "education records" and are subject to disclosure unless the notice "directly relates" to the student’s education | Remanded: appellate court directed the trial court to inspect the student notice to determine whether it "directly relates" to the student’s educational status or activities; if so, FERPA may bar disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Portland v. Oregonian Publishing Co., 200 Or App 120 (describing OPRL disclosure presumption)
- Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School Dist., 310 Or 32 (statutory exemptions must be narrowly construed and applied on an individualized basis)
- Colby v. Gunson, 224 Or App 666 (ambiguities in exemptions construed to favor disclosure)
- Mail Tribune, Inc. v. Winters, 236 Or App 91 (burden shifting and individualized showing for privacy exemption under ORS 192.502(2))
- Brown v. Guard Publishing Co., 267 Or App 552 (ORS 192.505 separation rule applies only to exemptions that carve out parts of a record, not to exemptions that categorically exempt whole documents)
- Jordan v. MVD, 308 Or 433 (definition of "information of a personal nature")
- City of Portland v. Anderson, 163 Or App 550 (information relating to public duties can be non-personal despite individual-specific content)
- Port of Portland v. Ore. Center for Environ. Health, 238 Or App 404 (records confidential under one exemption need not be segregated under ORS 192.505)