JOHN DOE BY HIS NEXT FRIEND JANE DOE, ET AL v. BRENTWOOD ACADEMY INC., ET AL
No. M2018-02059-COA-R9-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
December 11, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. 2017-435, 2017-472 Deanna B. Johnson, Judge
This
Justin S. Gilbert, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants, John Doe and Jane Doe.
Thomas A. Swafford, Nashville, Tennessee, Elizabeth G. Hart and Tara L. Swafford, Franklin, Tennessee, and Lucian T. Pera, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Buddy Alexander, Nancy Brasher, Brentwood Academy, Inc., Lyle Husband, Curt Masters, and Mike Vazquez.
OPINION
This case arises out of an alleged sexual assault of a minor, John Doe, in a middle school locker room. John Doe by his next friend Jane Doe filed a complaint against the school and several individual defendants. Although the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice under
“the Court hereby requires that all documents filed in this case initially be placed under seal. The Court will then do an in camera inspection of each document and decide whether or not to unseal the document.”
No such in camera inspection of the relevant documents had occurred at the time the
Documents previously filed under seal in the trial court pursuant to a specific order of the trial court remain under seal in this court.
On November 1, 2018, the trial court entered an order placing several documents, or portions thereof, under seal and removing the seal from several other documents. At issue in this appeal is the trial court‘s determination that certain portions of a February 5, 2018 order and a November 9, 2017 transcript, both of which reference Jane Doe‘s medical history, should not be placed under seal. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had failed to show a “compelling reason” to justify sealing these portions of the record because they contained a discussion about Jane Doe‘s medical information, not of Jane Doe‘s actual medical records. The trial court subsequently granted the plaintiffs permission to appeal under
We review the trial court‘s orders to seal its records under an abuse of discretion standard. However, “‘[i]n light of the important rights involved, the district court‘s decision is not accorded’ the deference that standard normally brings.” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2016). (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). Having reviewed the relevant documents, we conclude the trial court interpreted the protection for the plaintiff‘s medical history too narrowly.
ANALYSIS
“The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc‘ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). This public access doctrine is codified in the Tennessee Public Records Act.
There is a “strong presumption in favor of openness” regarding court records. Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). Unlike discovery information merely exchanged between the parties, “[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1180. As this court has reasoned, “[t]he public‘s right to access provides public scrutiny over the court system which serves to (1) promote community respect for the rule of law, (2) provide a check on the activities of judges and litigants, and (3) foster more accurate fact finding.” In re NHC, 293 S.W.3d at 561 (quoting Ballard, 924 S.W.2d at 661).
There are, however, numerous exceptions to the Public Records Act and the openness of court records that are provided by statute, the Tennessee Constitution, the common law, rules of court, and administrative rules and regulations. Tennessean v. Metro. Gov‘t of Nashville, 485 S.W.3d 857, 865 (Tenn. 2016) (“When the [Public Records] Act was adopted in 1957, only two categories of records were excepted from disclosure—medical records of patients in state hospitals and military records involving the security of the nation and state. However, over the years, the General Assembly has added over forty categories of records specifically excepted from the Act.“). In fact, medical records enjoy broad protection from public disclosure, and the courts of this state have long recognized the importance of keeping a patient‘s medical records confidential. Hall v. Crenshaw, 449 S.W.3d 463, 469 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014); Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547, 558 (Tenn. 2013); McNiel v. Cooper, 241 S.W.3d 886, 896 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) Alsip v. Johnson City Med. Ctr., 197 S.W.3d 722, 725 (Tenn. 2006); Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 407 (Tenn. 2002).
As explained in McNiel, “[m]aintaining the confidentiality of patient records is for the protection of the patient[.]” 241 S.W.3d at 896 (citation omitted). Moreover, as discussed in Hall and emphasized in Alsip:
medical confidentiality arose from both the patient‘s understanding of the covenant between physician and patient and the policy concerns about keeping private and potentially embarrassing information private, adding, “The relationship of patient to physician is a particularly intimate one [because] [t]o the physician we bare our bodies ... in confidence that what is seen and heard will remain unknown to others.”
Hall, 449 S.W.3d at 469 (quoting Alsip, 197 S.W.3d at 726).
The privacy of such records is also protected by both federal and state statutes. Medical records are deemed confidential pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA“). Tennessee statutes also protect the confidentiality of medical records. As we noted in Givens, “the General Assembly has enacted several statutes that expressly require a physician and others to keep a patient‘s medical records and identifying information confidential.” 75 S.W.3d at 407. One such statute,
The medical records of patients in state, county, and municipal hospitals and medical facilities, and the medical records of persons receiving medical treatment, in whole or in part, at the expense of the state, county, or municipality, shall be treated as confidential and shall not be open for inspection by members of the public.
Because medical records are universally recognized as confidential and
The foregoing reasoning also comports with a fundamental reason for open courts, which is “the public is entitled to assess for itself the merits of judicial decisions.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305. As our courts have explained, “[t]he public has an interest in ascertaining what evidence and records the District Court and this Court have relied upon in reaching our decisions.” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1181). Conversely, if the information is both confidential and was not relied on by the court to make a judicial decision, then the public‘s right to such information is greatly diminished.
While Jane Doe is a plaintiff, she is acting primarily as next friend for her son, John Doe, and her only claim is for reimbursement of tuition, not for any personal injuries to her. This is significant because in determining whether records or information in a court file should be sealed, one of the important factors is whether the court relied on such information in reaching its decisions. See Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305. The documents before us fail to establish that the medical records of Jane Doe pertain to any claim she filed. They also fail to establish that the trial court relied on the medical records of Jane Doe in making any decision. Moreover, this action was voluntarily dismissed months ago and the only matters remaining before the trial court pertain to the alleged contemptuous conduct of an attorney, which issue has no relevance to the medical records of Jane Doe.
While the information at issue here is not a medical record, it is information that was obtained from Jane Doe‘s medical records. Protecting the medical records themselves but allowing public disclosure of their contents would provide no protection for confidential information. Therefore, medical information obtained from a confidential medical record retains its confidentiality unless and until the patient puts his or her medical history at issue in a civil action or waives the confidentiality.
The foregoing notwithstanding, defendants assert that the application of the plaintiffs to seal Jane Doe‘s medical records and information derived therefrom should be denied because the plaintiffs publicly disclosed in their application the very medical history they seek to have sealed. In the original public version of their
CONCLUSION
The application for permission to appeal is hereby granted.2 The portions of the trial court‘s November 1, 2018 order denying the plaintiffs’ request to seal the portions of the February 5, 2018 order and November 9, 2017 transcript which reference Jane Doe‘s medical history are reversed and those portions of the February 5, 2018 order and November 9, 2017 transcript shall be placed under seal. All other provisions of the November 1, 2018 order remain in full effect.
The plaintiffs’ motion to file portions of their application and exhibits under seal is also granted. The unredacted documents that were filed under conditional seal in accordance with
The costs of this appeal are taxed to the defendants/appellees, jointly and severally.
FRANK G. CLEMENT JR., P.J., M.S.