Texas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas
391 S.W.3d 343
Tex. App.2013Background
- Board sued Abbott to obtain a ruling that certain chiropractic records in the Board’s possession are exempt from the Texas Public Information Act (PIA).
- Records at issue were part of the Board’s investigation file into a chiropractor and were claimed confidential under Occupations Code §201.206.
- Ordinarily, §201.206 protects investigation files from disclosure; ORD had also suggested a potential conflict with patient-access provisions in §201.404–§201.405.
- The ORD concluded there was a conflict with patient-access provisions but treated §201.404–§201.405 as controlling, under the code-construction act §311.026(b).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Abbott (disclosure required) and the Board appealed; the court reversed and held the records are exempt under the PIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §201.206 makes the investigation file confidential from disclosure under the PIA. | Board—records are confidential by law under §201.206. | Abbott—confidentiality is overridden by other provisions via in pari materia analysis. | §201.206 controls; records exempt from disclosure. |
| Whether §201.404 and §201.405 create a right of access that trumps §201.206. | Abbott—these sections provide a patient-right of access to his records. | Board—these provisions are not intended to override investigation-file confidentiality. | Not in pari materia; §201.404–§201.405 do not create a trumping right. |
| Whether the in pari materia doctrine (§311.026(b)) applies to §201.404/§201.405 versus §201.206. | Abbott—these are special provisions that prevail over the general confidentiality in §201.206. | Board—statutes do not share the same purpose; §311.026(b) inapplicable. | §311.026(b) does not apply; the provisions do not share a common purpose. |
| How to harmonize conflicting provisions with the PIA’s privacy and access framework. | Board—public has no general right to access these investigation-file records. | Abbott—patient-access provisions should be read as exceptions. | The Board’s investigation-file privilege remains; 552.023 does not compel release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Texas Att'y Gen., 257 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (liberal construction of the PIA; narrowly construed exemptions)
- Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth., 71 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. 2002) (statutory construction; pari materia considerations)
- Sanchez v. Texas State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 229 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (statutory interpretation; public information access)
- In re J.M.R., 149 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (pari materia considerations; not all similar phrases imply related purposes)
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC v. Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities, 263 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (interpretation of statutory provisions; harmonization of conflicting provisions)