Patrick Walsh v. Texas Department of State Health Services
14-20-00111-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 12, 2021Background
- In 2017 Patrick Walsh requested statewide death data for 2016–2017 from the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS): name, street address, city/state/zip, date of birth, date of death, cause of death, and gender.
- DSHS released names, dates of death, and gender, but withheld addresses, dates of birth, and causes of death, citing Texas Gov’t Code § 552.115 (death records confidentiality).
- The Texas Attorney General (AG) issued a letter ruling directing DSHS to release the withheld information; DSHS sued the AG under § 552.324 to challenge that ruling; Walsh intervened.
- Both DSHS and Walsh moved for traditional summary judgment; the trial court granted DSHS’s motion and declared the withheld fields protected under § 552.115; Walsh appealed.
- Walsh raised multiple challenges on appeal: (1) DSHS was barred from seeking an AG decision because of a prior determination under § 552.301(f); (2) res judicata / collateral estoppel; (3) whether § 552.115 applies to the requested data and whether DSHS exceeded its rulemaking authority by treating the data as confidential.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding DSHS could seek the AG’s decision, res judicata/collateral estoppel did not apply, and § 552.115 covers the withheld data as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 552.301(f) barred DSHS from requesting an AG ruling because of a prior determination | Walsh: a 2011 judgment about similar death records constitutes a "previous determination" covering the same category, so DSHS was prohibited from seeking an AG decision | DSHS: no prior determination addressed the precise information (2016–2017 death records) at issue, so § 552.301(f) does not apply | Court: § 552.301(f) requires a prior determination about the precise information; no such prior determination for 2016–2017 existed; issue overruled |
| Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude DSHS from relitigating disclosure for 2016–2017 records | Walsh: the 2011 judgment resolving disclosure for earlier years bars relitigation | DSHS: different claims/facts (different years), plaintiff must prove elements of the defenses and did not | Court: defenses fail because the earlier judgment concerned different records/years; doctrines do not apply |
| Whether § 552.115 applies to the requested fields (address, DOB, cause of death) or only to discrete documents like death certificates | Walsh: "death records" should be limited to discrete documents (e.g., certificates), so the underlying data should be public | DSHS: "death records" can include compiled data and database fields; statutory definition of public information is broad; legislature intended a 25‑year confidentiality rule for death records | Court: adopts broad view; data filed with DSHS qualify as death records protected for 25 years under § 552.115; Walsh’s narrow construction rejected |
| Whether DSHS exceeded its statutory rulemaking authority by expanding confidentiality beyond the statute | Walsh: DSHS’s rules improperly expand the types of information treated as confidential | DSHS: legislature set the confidentiality framework and authorized DSHS to adopt rules for vital statistics and summary death indexes | Court: legislature set confidentiality; DSHS’s rules implementing summary death index are within rulemaking authority and do not unlawfully expand § 552.115 |
Key Cases Cited
- Worsdale v. City of Killeen, 578 S.W.3d 57 (Tex. 2019) (standard of review for legal questions)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (when both parties move for summary judgment, appellate court reviews both motions and renders judgment it should have rendered)
- Mid‑Century Ins. Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2007) (de novo review of traditional summary judgment)
- Cadena Commercial USA Corp. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 518 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. 2017) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. City of Houston, 531 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975) (open‑records precedent on categories of information and prior determinations)
- Houston Chronicle Publ’g Co. v. Mattox, 767 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1989) (Attorney General’s prior determinations and refusal to rule on category grounds subject to judicial review)